Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF KING GEORGE VI

Message from the Queen

THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. CEDRIC DREWE) reported Her Majesty's answer to the Address, as follows:

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the loyal and affectionate address which the House of Commons have presented to me on the sad loss that I have suffered and on my accession to the Throne.

I value highly the warm expressions of your attachment to my person and of your confidence in my determination to follow my dear Father's example of devotion to the service of his peoples throughout the world.

I pray that with the blessing of Almighty God I may ever justify your trust and that, aided by your counsel and sustained by the strength of the affection of my peoples, I may uphold the ideals that my Father set before me

of peace, freedom and the happiness of the great family of which I am now the head.

Message from the Queen Mother

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot, having been appointed, together with Mr. Ralph Assheton, Viscountess Davidson, Mr. Clement Davies, Miss Florence Horsbrugh, Mr. G. H. Oliver, Dr. Edith Summerskill and Mr. A. Woodburn to wait upon Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, with a Message of condolence from this House, reported Her Majesty's answer, as follows:

I thank you most sincerely for your message of condolence, which will help me to bear the burden of my great sorrow. I am deeply touched by your warm sympathy, and I am moved by this further sign of your close and constant affection towards me.

Message from Queen Mary

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot, having been appointed, together with Mr. Ralph Assheton, Viscountess Davidson, Mr. Clement Davies, Miss Florence Horsbrugh, Mr. G. H. Oliver, Dr. Edith Summerskill and Mr. A. Woodburn to wait upon Her Majesty Queen Mary with a Message of condolence from this House, reported Her Majesty's answer, as follows:

I thank you for your message of condolence. The warmth and sincerity of your sympathy will be a consolation to me at this time of deep personal sorrow.

Messages of Condolence

Mr. Speaker: In addition to the messages of condolence which I read to the House last week, I have received the following telegrams from other countries expressing sympathy in the loss we have sustained in the death of His late Majesty:

The Speaker, House of Commons, London

At its first sitting held after the demise of your illustrious King George VI the Egyptian Chamber of Deputies, deeply affected by this great loss, expresses to the House of Commons its warmest sympathy and condolence, grievously moved by the heavy blow that has fallen upon Her Majesty the Queen, the Royal Family, and the British People.

ABDEL SALAAM FAHMY GOMAS,

President of the Chamber of Deputies.

The Rt. Hon. William S. Morrison, Speaker of the House of Commons, London

On behalf of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands States-General I beg to offer you the sincere condolences of this Chamber on the sudden death of your beloved King, His Majesty George VI.

L. G. KORTENHORST,

President of the Second Chamber of the States-General.

Mr. Speaker: I have also received the following letter:

Speaker of the House of Commons, Rt. Hon. W. S. Morrison

I have the great honour of informing you that the Chamber of Representatives of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay has resolved to address the House of Commons in order to express the feelings of acute sorrow that have been caused in its senate by the death of King George VI and likewise to signify its unity with the British Commonwealth in such distressing moments of its history.

I send to Mr. Speaker my sincerest regards,

ALFREDO DUPETIT IBARRA,

Vice President.

GONZALO DE SALTERAIN HERRERA,

Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: I have sent suitable replies to these messages.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

COMPANY OF WATERMEN AND LIGHTER- MEN BILL

EALING CORPORATION BILL

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

FAREHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

GLOSSOP WATER BILL

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (ROCHDALE CANAL BRIDGES) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND HOUSE) BILL

MERCHANT NAVY MEMORIAL BILL

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

ROCHDALE CANAL BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL

WEST HARTLEPOOL EXTENSION BILL

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PENSIONS

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions at what figure the basic rate of war pensions would require to be fixed in order to have the same purchasing power as 45s. had in 1946; and what additional cost would fall upon his Department in the first full year.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): About 62s. would now be required to produce the purchasing power of 45s. in 1946. The annual cost of increasing the basic rate of disablement pension to 62s. weekly is estimated at £11½ million, with a further £2 million if corresponding increases were made in officers' pensions.

Sir I. Fraser: Does my hon. Friend share the view of many people in this country in all parties that the time has come to make an adjustment in this matter? Will he convey that view to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Amory: I must be careful to withstand the stratagems—the very friendly stratagems—of my hon. Friend, but I realise, as I am sure everyone else in the House does, that the increases in the cost of living that have taken place during the last six years have involved hardships for many sections of the community, war pensioners among them. As I have said before, this matter is at present under consideration, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: If there are hardships involved for all sections in the community, is not the one section that should be protected from these hardships that of the war pensioners?

Mr. Amory: I certainly agree that war pensioners should have the highest possible priority.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions the total expenditure of his Department on war disability pensions and allowances for the past six years; and the estimate for the year which will end on 31st March, 1952.

Mr. Amory: The total expenditure on disablement pensions and allowances in

the last six financial years was £289,310,000, varying from £38,113,000 in 1945–46 to £50,262,000 in 1950–51. The estimated expenditure in this respect for the year ending 31st March, 1952, is £50,277,000.

Sir I. Fraser: In the absence of any alterations, such as that contemplated in the previous Question, can my hon. Friend say whether this figure is likely to fall materially during the next few years?

Mr. Amory: In the absence of a further war one would certainly hope that it would continue to show its present trend to diminish steadily.

Mr. H. Hynd: How do the figures the Minister has just given compare with the expenditure in a comparable period before 1946?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid I cannot give that comparison without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down I will certainly try to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Official Notepaper

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Secretary of State for War why and under what authority the Under-Secretary of State is using notepaper headed "Under-Secretary of State for War".

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): This writing-paper was produced at the request of the late Under-Secretary of State in August, 1951: similar papers are used by other members of the Army Council.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my congratulations once more on adopting ideas produced on this side of the House? Will he now remember that there is a very real danger, which concerns all of us, that the Prime Minister may meet some other noble Lord on his travels and may create a new Ministry to co-ordinate the Departments of the Secretary of State for War and of the Under-Secretary of State.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is not the correct title "The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State?"

Mr. Head: The correct title is "Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary of the War Office," but I am afraid that some hon. Gentlemen cannot always read as fast as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) can speak.

Z Reserve (Exemptions)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a full statement as to the grounds upon which exemption from the Z call-up may be granted.

Mr. Head: There are two broad categories which merit exemption, those in which the reservists's physical condition makes him unfit for training and those in which his absence from his home or place of business will cause extreme hardship to the reservist or to his dependants. Within these categories there is a very wide variety of cases, each of which must be considered on its merits. For this reason, I do not think that it would be practicable to give a detailed statement to cover the whole of this field.

Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that while there may be a very wide variety of exemption categories there may also be a very wide variation in the interpretation of the words "extreme hardship"? Should not some indication be given of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to one man businesses and people who are employed in departments where the people concerned go away for a fortnight and other people are employed?

Mr. Head: I shall be pleased to discuss this matter with the hon. Gentleman after Questions to see whether we can get to anything satisfactory. At the present moment every case is considered on its merits, I think always sympathetically, but it is very hard to define an exact set of rules for considering cases of individual hardship.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of exempting former prisoners of war who, by reason of being 10 years older now, might suffer great harm from sudden periods of intensive training?

Mr. Head: There is a Question on the Order Paper on that subject, so perhaps my hon. Friend will await my reply.

Home Guard

Mr. George Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the official statements made by Colonel Ambrose Keevil, Commander. Mid and East Surrey Home Guard Sector, to the effect that there would be a very severe screening of all men who apply to join the Home Guard, were made with his knowledge and consent; and how the checking and screening will be carried out.

Mr. Head: There is no intention of carrying out any special procedure in respect of candidates for enrolment in the Home Guard. The records of certain Home Guard officers and men who may in the course of their duties have access to secret documents or plans will be checked: this conforms with the present procedure in the Services. I had no prior knowledge of Colonel Keevil's statement.

Mr. Wigg: Can the Minister explain how it was that Colonel Keevil came to call this Press conference and that such wide publicity was given to it, particularly bearing in mind that the conference covered the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency?

Mr. Head: As a matter of detail, it was not held in my constituency—

Mr. Wigg: Covered.

Mr. Head: I cannot, of course, in any way prevent, nor would I wish to, local commanders from discussing matters with the Press. At the same time, obviously I cannot be responsible for everything that such officers may say.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country will be relieved to hear that severe screening is not taking place as it is in the case of the National Union of Railwaymen?

Mr. E. Shinwell: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he disclaims responsibility for the calling of Press conferences on matters affecting the War Office and organisations pertaining to the War Office by officers in the Home Guard?

Mr. Head: I in no way disclaimed responsibility. What I said was that I cannot possibly know on every occasion when such conferences are called. In my opinion it is a good thing if officers responsible for organisations of this type


keep in touch with the Press, but I cannot possibly have pre-knowledge of what they will say.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is it not encouraging to find that someone at least realises the danger of Communist infiltration and is prepared to fight it?

Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that when Colonel Keevil called this conference he was calling it in his capacity as a Home Guard commander and not in his capacity as President of the East Surrey Conservative Association?

Hon. Members: Cheap.

Mr. Head: If the hon. Gentleman is insinuating that this is some Tory appointment, let me say that in actual fact Colonel Keevil was earmarked for this post on 3rd September last. I am satisfied that he called the conference entirely in his capacity as Sector Commander of the Home Guard.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Can my right hon. Friend say if there is any objection to officers taking steps to see that they do not serve with disloyal people under their command?

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of registrations for the Home Guard, men and women being shown separately, received by 21st January, 1952; and on the latest day for which the figures are available.

Mr. Head: Home Guard registration cards received by my Department numbered 3,354 by 21st January, 1952, and 28,120 by 18th February, 1952. These were all sent in by men.

Tradesmen

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the extent of the shortage in the Army of tradesmen and potential tradesmen; and what action he is taking to remedy this situation.

Mr. Head: I am well aware that there are not enough tradesmen, especially those capable of filling the senior non-commissioned appointments and of reaching the highest degree of trade skill. It is hoped that certain changes in the terms of service, already made or shortly to be announced, will help in this problem and we are considering further steps to increase the number of Army apprentices. This is a serious and difficult problem

in which all three Services are competing with industry, and I shall continue to give it close attention.

Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to his reply and point out to her that the shortage of tradesmen and potential tradesmen in the Army is due to the shortage of technical colleges throughout the country?

Mr. Head: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has heard the remarks of the hon. Member and will take note of them.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: In taking steps to remedy this deficiency, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly see that no building operatives are taken away from the housing programme, because otherwise that 300,000 housing programme will fall further behind.

W.D. Land (Cropping)

Mr. Anthony Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the Government's decision to secure the utmost possible production of grain for this year's harvest, he will give general instructions that all land held by the War Office which can be spared for cropping shall be offered to local farmers.

Mr. Head: I well know the importance of this matter, and my existing instructions require the fullest possible use of War Department land in this way.

Mr. Hurd: How many acres of War Office land does my right hon. Friend expect will be released for cropping in this year's harvest?

Mr. Head: I could not answer that question without notice.

Connaught Military Hospital

Mr. F. A. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory conditions at the Connaught Military Hospital for tubercular patients at Hind-head, Surrey; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: The accommodation at this hospital is not all that I should wish. If, however, it were not used, tubercular patients would have to wait for a bed


in the limited general hospital accommodation elsewhere and would not have the advantage of early specialist treatment. Further improvements in the structure and amenities are in hand and I am satisfied that recent allegations about the conditions were much exaggerated. I would, should my hon. Friend wish it, gladly arrange for him to visit the Connaught Hospital.

Mr. Burden: Will by right hon. Friend take immediate steps to ensure that this hospital is cleaned up, in order not only that men there suffering from tuberculosis receive proper food and treatment, but that the cleansing of the verminous state of the place can be completed?

Mr. Head: Steps were in hand, and had been approved, before the allegations concerning this hospital were made. If my hon. Friend cares to go there now, I think he will find that conditions are nothing like those which have been portrayed rather sensationally.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Can the Minister give an assurance that the rats, mice and cockroaches which have infested the kitchens and other parts of this hospital have now been suitably disposed of?

Mr. Head: It would be wrong for me to go into the question of rats in too much detail but, even if rats are destroyed locally in a hospital, others will return if neighbours do not do the same thing. We are now attempting to have a large area of rat killing round this hospital.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to make sure that all military hospitals in the country are thoroughly looked at, because there is a very adverse effect on recruiting if the idea is about the country that these places are in a bad condition, even though it may not be as bad as people think?

Mr. Head: There is undoubtedly a good deal of work which remains to be done in Army hospitals. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that this conflicts with the building and other works programmes and with the re-armament programme. It is not easy to do all that we should like to do, although a good deal of it is being done.

Compassionate Postings

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason the practice of granting compassionate postings has now been abandoned.

Mr. Head: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), on 5th February.

Mr. Hale: What was the nature of that reply?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Member would like to know and the House will bear with me, it was briefly this: that the entire Army, almost without exception, is now overseas and therefore compassionate postings, which are, without exception, to enable a man to be near his home, are extremely difficult to make, because there is nowhere to post the individual concerned.

Mr. Hale: Is the Secretary of State for War aware that I have been refused consideration of compassionate postings for people in this country on the ground that the whole system has now been altered? Was any prior announcement made to the House of Commons about this, or is this just another under-the-counter social cut?

Mr. Head: Compassionate postings were abolished in January, 1947. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will say it again. The system of compassionate posting was abolished in January, 1947. I cannot remember the exact terms of the announcement, but I assure the hon. Member that now, in place of compassionate posting, very serious consideration is given to the grounds on which a man may be either exempted or released for the very reasons for which, in the old days, compassionate postings were given.

Mr. Hale: Surely the Minister is aware, whatever the terminology might have been, that men were posted near to their homes on compassionate grounds right up to the date of the Election, and that we are now getting them refused on the ground that it cannot be done?

Mr. Head: The hon. Member's allegations are quite unworthy of him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is no


question of any change of policy whatever. The position is, and since January, 1947, has been, that the old method of compassionate posting was utterly impracticable because with all these men overseas—

Mr. Shinwell: indicated assent.

Mr. Head: I see the former Minister of Defence nodding his head. With all these men overseas, if they ask for a compassionate posting, where are we to post them? There is no unit in England to which they can be posted. Therefore, a different system, equally sympathetic to hard cases, has been introduced.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Hale: As I am being assailed by cries of "Withdraw," may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I will send to the Secretary of State tonight the letter from his Under-Secretary, which I received a few days ago, in which this statement is specifically made, and that I have nothing to withdraw?

Overseas Allowance, Cyprus

Brigadier Terence Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the high cost of living in Cyprus; and, in view of the inadequacy of the allowances to the Forces in this station, if he will increase them.

Mr. Head: The rates of local overseas allowance for the Forces in Cyprus have recently been reviewed and substantial increases have now been authorised, which are to be effective from 1st April of last year.

Brigadier Clarke: May I thank the Minister for that answer? Until a very recent date, Cyprus has lagged behind the rest of the overseas stations.

Egypt (Nun's Death)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the findings of the British court of inquiry into the shooting of Sister Anthony of the Convent of St. Vincent de Paul, Ismailia.

Mr. Head: The reports of courts of inquiry are, by their nature, confidential and privileged documents, and it is not the practice to disclose them. After studying the proceedings of the court of

inquiry on this most regrettable incident, however, I am in full agreement with the opinions of Lieut.-General Erskine and the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Land Forces, that no responsibility in the matter can be attributed to the British Military Authorities.

Mr. Davies: Does not the Minister think that it would at least relieve the tension in that quarter of the world if the truth were told about this? Secondly, in view of the Egyptian communiqué of 22nd January that this nun was shot by British bullets, can the House at least be informed whether that allegation is true?

Mr. Head: With regard to the latter part of that Question, General Erskine issued a statement on 21st January in which Sister Anthony's death was attributed to terrorists. I am convinced that the findings of the court support General Erskine's statement, but, as I have said, to produce concrete proof of this matter would be a question of publishing the contents of a court of inquiry —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]— which is against all past precedent and procedure.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking the Minister for that answer, I should like him to tell us whether or not British bullets were found in the body of the nun. That would help, and even if it were an accident—we understand from Middle East reports that she was running to greet the tanks because she had telephoned for them, and it might have been a pure accident—the truth is the best. Were they British bullets?

Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. Member that both of the points or allegations he has raised are untrue. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the British troops in this case were not responsible.

Stores Depot, Kenya

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War why it has been decided to close down the base at Mackinnon Road; and what was the cost to date of opening and closing this base.

Mr. Head: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the then Under-Secretary of State for


War on 22nd November, 1950, in which the decision not to proceed with the store-holding organisation at Mackinnon Road was explained. The expenditure figure given in that reply still stands.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a considerable sum of money has been spent on this base, and will he make quite certain that we shall not eventually require it once more and have to spend the same amount of money on it again?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Catterick Camp (Punishments)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for War who gave the orders for the collective punishment from which arose the incidents at Catterick Camp resulting in one non-commissioned officer and six privates receiving periods of detention.

Mr. Head: No order can be given for collective punishment. Powers of summary punishment for minor offences are reserved to commanding officers or any officer to whom they have been delegated. Before any punishment can be awarded, every offender must be charged individually before an officer and an award of confinement to barracks cannot exceed 14 days at any one time. In this case, the non-commissioned officer concerned made an improper threat in order to intimidate the men concerned.

Mr. Shepherd: As it is clear that very often junior N.C.Os. in training units tend to exceed their authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that the only real safeguard is to have better officers, will my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to improve the quality of officers in these regiments?

Mr. Head: In this case, which was at Catterick, there has been something of a shortage of officers in the Royal Corp of Signals, but I think that this is improving. With regard to what non-commissioned officers threaten, it has been known for them to threaten to boil men alive, but it never happens, and I do not think that it ever will.

Reserve Training (Ex-Prisoners of War)

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the

case of ex-Japanese prisoners of war recalled for reserve training, the fullest investigation will be made at the time of their medical examination into the delayed effects of privations undergone while in Japanese hands; and whether he will issue special instructions to examining officers to this effect.

Mr. Head: Reservists selected for recall are asked, when examined by a National Service medical board, to give full details of their personal history. I am assured by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, who is responsible for these medical examinations, that his medical boards should therefore be in a position to make the fullest investigation of those who have been prisoners in Japanese hands. He will, however, arrange for this Question and answer to be circulated to all medical board chairmen.

Mr. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend consult with his right hon. Friend with a view to issuing a report as to whether in fact any deterioration in physical or mental conditions has taken place since 1945 as a result of ill-treatment in these Japanese camps?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir, I will certainly bring that forward.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of consulting local organisations responsible for the welfare of these men when any of them is likely to be called up, as those organisations keep a close watch on these men and should know them?

Mr. Head: Yes. I will certainly consider that.

Service Houses, Liverpool

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War how long the Service houses have been in the course of construction at Deysbrook Lane, Liverpool Depot; when they are likely to be completed; and how much they will have cost.

Mr. Head: The houses at Deysbrook Lane, Liverpool, have been under construction since April, 1950. It is expected that they will be completed in March this year. The houses will have cost £13,782 and £4,611 will have been spent on roads, drainage, etc.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the Minister say whether this tender was given to private enterprise and whether there are any reasons why the building of these houses has taken so long?

Mr. Head: I am informed that the long time which it took to build these houses was due to labour difficulties in the area. The order was put out to tender and was given to the lowest bidder and received Treasury approval.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the Minister tell the House the name of the person who received the tender?

Mr. Head: No, I could not tell the hon. Lady that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Parcels to Troops

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the use of the United States C-82A type of aeroplane, or the C-119, for the transportation of parcels to our troops in Korea.

Mr. Head: The decision as to the type of plane to be used for carrying parcels to our Forces in Korea does not lie within my sphere, and is a matter for the British Overseas Airways Corporation who are, I understand, satisfied with the present arrangements.

Miss Burton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions arising out of that reply? Is he aware that the Question in the first place was put down to the Minister of Defence because in the last Parliament the Minister of Defence answered such queries, and it was transferred to him? Secondly, may I ask him if it is possible to get a definite answer to this question from B.O.A.C., because it was stated by the Ministers in the last Parliament that the present transport arrangements for taking parcels to Korea would not permit of larger numbers to go there?

Mr. Head: In answer to the first question, the transference of the Question to myself was made by the Ministry of Defence and I attempted to give the hon. Lady the best answer of which I was capable. It would be wrong for me to commit the Minister responsible for Civil

Aviation to giving a satisfactory answer, but I am quite certain in my own mind that a decision on this matter rests with him and not with myself.

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, taking the present postal rate for air parcels to Germany as a basis, the additional cost per annum of each man in Her Majesty's Forces overseas receiving one 2-lb. parcel per month would be approximately £1½ million; and if he will make arrangements for this rate to apply outside Germany for at least such a limited concession.

Mr. Head: For the reasons my hon. Friend gave in the Adjournment debate on 15th November last, I cannot in present circumstances contemplate adding £l½ million to the cost of the present postal concessions to the Forces, which already amounts to over £1½ million a year.
I should like to take this opportunity to point out that some complaints about the high cost of parcels sent to the Far East concern the despatch of such things as soap, writing paper, chocolate, etc. These, and many of the goods now being sent, can be bought from the N.A.A.F.I. or unit canteens: and those who wish to make gifts of this kind could do so under the scheme for sending out postal orders.
There are also complaints about the cost of sending newspapers by air, which may be made without knowledge of the arrangements by which the War Office sends out large numbers of the Sunday national newspapers to these theatres. In spite of the publicity that has been given to these and other facilities, I think that there is still some ignorance of them and it would be a great help if hon. Members who are approached on these subjects would do what they can to make these arrangements more widely known.

Miss Burton: I know the right hon. Gentleman wishes to help, but is he aware that these very long answers, which really are not on the point I have raised, get us no further? May I ask him if he does not feel that, as we shall not reach the target set for defence expenditure this year, it would be possible to include this £1½ million for these postal services? Lastly, does he believe it is right that the men who are serving in Korea should have


their families paying so much more for parcels than those who are serving in Germany or Egypt?

Mr. Head: I thank the hon. Lady for her long supplementary question, but I do not think it is right at this time of national economic difficulty to pay a subsidy of £1½ million. The number of parcels sent is not at the moment immense, and as I have said, although it may be irrelevant, a great many of them comprise goods which could be bought locally, which I believe would be a sensible method to adopt. I do not believe there is any prospect whatever of getting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the £1½ million.

Brigadier Clarke: Would the Secretary of State for War consider an arrangement whereby parents and relatives could send money to the N.A.A.F.I. for delivering to the troops the goods which he mentioned? It is not the same thing to send a postal order to a man in a trench.

Mr. Head: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his constructive suggestion and will look into it.

Amenities

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the provision of further amenities for Her Majesty's Forces in Korea.

Mr. Head: As I have already stated in the House, all the major units now have their own cinema projectors and mobile shows are arranged for the smaller units. From next month eight concert parties from this country and Australia are being sent to Korea at monthly intervals. In addition, there has been an improvement of N.A.A.F.I. facilities, including new arrangements for the supply and printing of films for cameras, better stocks of books, and a higher standard of catering in the canteens. The N.A.A.F.I. gift scheme is working well and now incorporates the insurance without extra expense to the sender of parcels sent home. Six members of the Women's Voluntary Services are now in Korea and working at the Divisional Rest Centre and canteens.

Miss Burton: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that as much publicity as possible is given to this reply? Is he aware that there is real feeling in the

country that the men in Korea are not getting the amenities which they should have?

Mr. Head: Yes, I am well aware of that, and I shall welcome any publicity that is given to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Supplies of Materials

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the prospects for increased supplies of timber, cement and bricks for housing in 1952.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am working closely with my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and have every reason to believe that these materials will be available for housing in increasing quantities.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the information he has measures up to the optimism expressed in the Election?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "measures up" I feel we shall make progress and am not so much concerned with this part of the problem as with many other sides of it.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread feeling that brick production is far too low in brickyards inherited by the National Coal Board, due to the fact that no one in the National Coal Board knows anything about brick production? Will he consider having an independent examination of this question by one of the well known producers of bricks in private industry?

Mr. Macmillan: I am working closely with the Minister of Works, who is primarily concerned, and I feel hopeful that brick production will rise.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the Minister says that he has reason to hope that conditions will improve, can he give facts and figures to support that view?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not understand the purpose of the hon. Member's question. Does he hope that the housing policy will fail?

Mr. Lewis: Am I entitled to answer the Minister's question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask another question?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Storey.

Ex-Service Men

Mr. S. Storey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will circularise local authorities, advising them to relax their residence qualification for houses in favour of long-service members of Her Majesty's Forces who have taken up permanent employment in their area.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular I addressed to all local housing authorities on this subject on 31st January last.

Mr. Storey: Whilst appreciating that the Minister is taking action in this matter, may I ask if he will keep it under review to see that those local authorities which up to now have ignored the advice the Minister has given do take action to help the long-service men?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Self-Help Groups

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will authorise a special additional allocation of building licences to local authorities to meet the needs of self-help building groups registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and who are affiliated to the National Federation of Housing Societies.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether his attention has been called to a widespread movement among housing associations to encourage self-help groups of amateurs to build their own houses with their own spare-time labour; and whether he will encourage local authorities to issue licences in such cases;
(2) whether he will make housing allocations available to local authorities irrespective of the rate of completions where this would enable them to issue licences to self-help spare-time builders; and
(3) if he has considered the claims made to him that individuals using their own spare-time labour can build houses

for themselves for less than £1,000; and what steps he proposes to make the fullest use of this source of labour.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I should like to show my appreciation of the initiative of any self-help group which could satisfy the local authority that its members had the will and the resources to complete the building of a small number of houses quickly. It would be for the local authority to decide how many houses could suitably be authorised at any one time. Local authorities know that in general the more houses that are built in their area the more will be authorised.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend consider circularising local authorities urging them to give every encouragement and assistance to these building groups?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir; I hope my hon. Friend's Question will help to give that publicity.

Mr. Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend take every possible step to make known the desirability of creating these housing associations in all parts of the country in order to advance the work my right hon. Friend has welcomed.

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: How does the Minister propose to ensure that any houses which may be built under these schemes are at least up to the standards suggested by the Housing Registration Council, and what machinery does the right hon. Gentleman propose to use to ensure that?

Mr. Macmillan: I see the importance of that, but I think that local authorities and my regional officers will be able to look after the matter.

Steel Supplies

Mr. S. S. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that the Bristol Corporation is obliged to construct nine-storey flats to house its people, many of whom were rendered homeless as a result of bombing during the war; that these flats require steel which cannot be obtained; and what steps he is taking to see that an adequate supply of steel is made available to the city for this purpose.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Because of the need for the utmost economy in the use


of steel I asked local authorities in my Circular No. 9/52 to build flats with load-bearing walls and not in frame construction. I regret that I cannot at present approve schemes which involve the use of a large quantity of steel.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is just as essential to provide steel for the building of houses as it is to provide steel for the protection of houses after they are built? Will he see that progress in house building is not retarded in blitzed areas where these houses are required?

Mr. Macmillan: This is a question of building these nine-storeyed flats. In my view, at the present time it is right to build them either with load-bearing walls or by other forms of construction which make the minimum demand on steel.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide the steel required for the revised form of housing?

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what alterations have been made in the allocation of capital to each of the heavily war-damaged cities for the current as compared with last year.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The progress of reconstruction in the blitzed cities will depend upon the amount of steel which can be provided for this purpose. I hope to be able to allocate sufficient capital for all work for which steel can be made available.

Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the allocation of capital to the blitzed sites will be given in proportion to the damage done by bombing?

Mr. Macmillan: What seems to me more important than allocation of capital is the allocation of actual physical things with which this work can be done, and I think that a sounder basis on which to work than to stick rigidly to the capital investment system.

Mr. Michael Foot: When the right hon. Gentleman says that steel is the only factor affecting progress of rebuilding on blitzed sites, how does he make that conform with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which referred to capital investment as the main factor causing the hold-up in building?

Mr. Macmillan: The Question asked me about providing necessary steel, and I said that I was prepared to allocate capital to meet the steel that is available. I am happy to say that in case of Bristol, if the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), has that city in mind, there has now been allocated all the steel necessary for the 11 works in progress.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend give wide publicity to the possibility of using pre-stressed concrete in place of steel in many cases?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, of course the development of the building programme depends upon the economical use of steel.

Mr. Awbery: On a point of order. I was asking Question No. 27, which refers to the allocation of capital. Question No. 26 referred to the allocation of steel.

Mr. Macmillan: I hope there was no misunderstanding. I said that I hoped to be able to allocate sufficient capital for all the work for which steel can be made available.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Will the Minister ensure that where local authorities do change their plans and provide for load-bearing walls, there will be sufficient steel made available for them to complete the erection of that type of flat?

Mr. Macmillan: We will certainly do our best.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Can the Minister tell the House whether or not there is a reduction in the provision for the rebuilding of blitzed cities this year as compared with last year?

Mr. Macmillan: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman until we come to the end of the year.

Mr. Dalton: Is it then not without significance that the term "planning" has disappeared from the right hon. Gentleman's title?

Mr. Macmillan: It appears to me to be much more sensible to make capital and material continually available as conditions improve, rather than to fix a figure for the whole year and never under any conditions to alter it.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends to satisfy the needs


of Batley Corporation in respect of an allocation of steel necessary for the construction of a reservoir, without which additional water supply the building of houses in Birstall cannot be resumed.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The town council's requirements are being considered along with other urgent requirements, but, as there are large outstanding demands, I cannot give an immediate decision.

Dr. Broughton: Does the Minister agree that the concession which he has granted since this Question appeared on the Order Paper is really no more than a vague half-promise? Does the Minister understand that there is an urgent need for houses in Birstall, and that house building is at a standstill until the water supply can be improved?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, we are very conscious of the importance of that.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what reduction has recently been made in the allocation of steel to his Department for housing and ancillary work; and what complaints he is receiving of shortages.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Steel for these purposes is being made available, subject to the exercise of proper economies in its use.

Mr. Davies: But that is not an answer to the Question on the Paper, which asks what reduction is being made by his Department so that the many works, including provision against subsidence and work for the blitzed cities, can be dealt with. Will the Minister tell us whether a lower allocation is being given to his Department as compared with last year?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. But it is clear that what we are doing is the sensible thing to do. We hope to get a greater use out of the steel that we have available by the adoption over a wide field of steel economising methods.

Subsidy

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the housing subsidy.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is now in a position to

make a statement on the progress of negotiations with local authorities on the revision of housing subsidies; and if he will give an assurance that full regard is being paid to the effect of the further increase in the Public Works Loan Board rate of interest.

Mr. Douglas Jay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in the light of the further increase in the rate of interest for loans from the Public Works Loan Board, and its effect on the rents of council houses, he will make a statement arising out of the discussions on housing subsidies between his Department and the local authorities.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given on 29th January, 1952, to the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) and others. I hope to meet the representatives of the local authorities on Thursday.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is grave anxiety among the local authorities lest any increase in the subsidy should not be sufficient to offset the extra cost of borrowing due to the increase in the rate of interest from 3 per cent. to 4½ per cent., which will add 5s. 10d. a week to the cost of houses in Nottingham and elsewhere?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, but if that be their anxiety I can allay it immediately. It will be sufficient for that purpose, but I thought that by tradition it would be discourteous to make any announcement in the House until I have had the normal discussions with representatives of the local authorities, which take place this week.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Are we to understand that the increase in the housing subsidy is guaranteed to be sufficient to cover the whole increased cost to local housing authorities of the new rate of interest?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Jay: The Minister has made a very important statement in answer to a supplementary question. Can we be assured that it applies to all housing schemes throughout the country and that it also applies to Scotland?

Mr. Macmillan: I have answered perfectly straightforwardly the question put to me. The answer is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister saying that he will take money out of the ratepayers' pockets to put it into the pockets of moneylenders?

Loan Interest

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how far the former interest rate of 3 per cent. will apply to Nottingham Corporation's housing loans, not yet taken up, but sanctioned before the announcement of the 3¾ per cent. interest rate.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Loans from the Public Works Loan Board bear interest at the rate current at the date of the advance.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Finance and General Purposes Committee of Nottingham Corporation has been assuring the city council that the increased rate will not take effect in the case of houses which were authorised before the right hon. Gentleman's announcement in this House early in November?

Mr. Macmillan: The practice is in accordance with the answer I have given. Loans are charged at the rate of interest current at the date of the advance. This practice was fixed by Treasury minute of 1st August, 1945. I have no doubt that what the official referred to—I have not the facts—was the very common practice of many large local authorities of receiving into a common pool the different loans they make, and when they pay them out, of charging them at the average rate that the loans have cost them. It may be that.

Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentleman really means to cover the whole increase by the subsidy, why could he not have told us that in December and saved all these weeks of uncertainty?

Mr. Macmillan: I think the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of the Treasury must be fading from him.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Will the Minister indicate what effective purpose is achieved by the Government first raising the interest on local loans and subsequently, in order to cover such rise, increasing the subsidy on local housing?

Mr. Macmillan: This matter will be covered by a Bill. I did not want to go into every detail until I have discussed many details about the different types of subsidy which are the concern of the local authorities. When I have done that, after the usual meetings a full announcement will be made and a full debate will take place upon the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the Lambeth Borough Council, to quote one example, applied for loan sanction in respect of 103 dwellings on 31st October last and that by reason of the inefficiency and delay in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, this council will, when the sanction is granted, be seriously adversely penalised?

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much of the £8½ million required for Nottingham Corporation's Clifton and Bramcote Lane housing estates will be borrowed at 3 per cent. interest; how much at 3¾ per cent.; and how much at 4¼ per cent.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This information is not available. The council operate a consolidated loans fund in which individual loans lose their identity and rates of interest are averaged.

Sale of Council Houses

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement about the Regulations under which local authorities can sell council houses to existing tenants.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am discussing the matter with representatives of the associations of local authorities and hope to make an announcement shortly.

Wing Commander Bullus: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate being in a position to make a statement before Easter?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Alkali Inspectorate, South-East Lancashire

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement upon the division


of district 2 of the alkali inspectorate and the appointment of an additional inspector for duty in South-East Lancashire.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I appreciate the needs of the district and am considering an additional appointment.

Reform

Mr. Stephen Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has yet reached a decision on the subject of the redistribution of the boundaries and functions of local authorities.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister not tell the House something about the proposals which he said he would bring forward urgently on this matter of the reform of local Government? Has he not received any recommendations on this matter from the local authority associations?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister not aware that in his party's programme at the General Election there was a promise to bring forward proposals at an early opportunity?

Mr. Macmillan: This Parliament will, I hope, last for many years.

Froghall Cleansing Station

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to make a decision about the use of the Froghall cleansing station, about which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme wrote to him on 23rd November, 1951.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am consulting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who is also concerned, and I hope to make a decision shortly.

Mr. Swingler: Could the Minister say how soon this decision will be made? Is he aware that this matter has been going on for a number of months and is causing great difficulties for the medical officer at Newcastle-under-Lyme? Will the Minister give an indication how soon he can take a decision?

Mr. Macmillan: The fact is that for some reason this property is so desirable that quite a number of claimants have turned up.

Oral Answers to Questions — Basildon Development Corporation

Mr. Bernard Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will consult with the Billericay Urban District Council before making additional appointments to the Basildon Development Corporation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give very great satisfaction to the local authority whose representations on this and kindred matters in the past were consistently ignored by his predecessor?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make on business?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for THURSDAY will be as follows:
Supply [1st Allotted Day]: Committee.
Consideration of Civil Supplementary Estimates contained in House of Commons Paper No. 88, beginning with Class V Votes for the Ministry of National Insurance and the National Assistance Board;
All the Votes in Class IX which relate to Supply, Materials, Food (including Strategic Reserves), Transport, Fuel and Power; Administration of certain African Territories; War Damage Commission and Tin;
Class I, Scottish Home Department Vote; and all Votes in Class VI and Class II.

Mr. Attlee: Arising out of that statement, I should like to ask two questions. We understood that a day would be afforded for a discussion on Central African Federation. Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether that will be possible? Secondly, could he say whether a White Paper on Defence will be issued in the near future?

Mr. Crookshank: On the first point, of course I will bear that in mind, but this is not a statement of business for next week: it is only a statement about what will happen on Thursday. In reply to the


second question, a White Paper on Defence will be published. It is hoped to make the Paper available on Thursday evening or Friday morning of this week.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in considering a possible day for a debate on Central African Federation, that the Government have decided to bring forward to April a conference first contemplated for July and that it is essential that the matter should be discussed before that conference takes place?

Mr. Crookshank: That may be true, Sir, but I am only dealing with the question of the business for the day after tomorrow.
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN

Roger Fleetwood Fleetwood-Hesketh, esquire, for Southport.

Nigel Nicolson, esquire, M.B.E., for Bournemouth East and Christchurch.

Denis Winston Healey, esquire, for Leeds, South-East.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

STERLING AREA (CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Richard Adams: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 22nd February, I shall call attention to the need for closer co-operation within the Sterling Area, and move a Resolution.

UTILITY CLOTHING SCHEME

Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 22nd February, I shall call attention to the need for maintaining the Utility Clothing Scheme, and move a Resolution.

RURAL HOUSING

Mr. George Jeger: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 22nd February, I shall call attention to the need for the abolition of the certificate system in respect of Rural Housing, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

MARINE AND AVIATION INSURANCE (WAR RISKS) BILL

"to make provision for authorising the Minister of Transport to undertake the insurance of ships, aircraft and certain other goods against war risks and, in certain circumstances, other risks; for the payment by him of compensation in respect of certain goods lost or damaged in transit in consequence of war risks; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. John Maclay; supported by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Henry Strauss and Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (AMEND- MENTS ON GOING INTO COM- MITTEE OF SUPPLY)

No notices of Motions on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy, Army, Air or Civil Estimates to be given in anticipation of the ballot to be held on Thursday, 21st February.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — FESTIVAL PLEASURE GARDENS (Re-Committed) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT TO EXEMPT FROM RE- QUIREMENTS AS TO CREW ACCOMMO- DATION.)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move, in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after "may," to insert:
after consultation with such organisation or organisations as appear to him to be representative of owners of British ships and of seamen employed therein make regulations to.
The reasons for this Amendment are twofold. I think every hon. Member accepts the need for this Bill, and agrees that the Minister of Transport must have discretion to make exemptions from the general Regulations which he is empowered to make under the principal Act. My reason for moving this Amendment is to enable the Committee to discuss the machinery of exemption, because I am far from satisfied about the way in which this amending Bill will work.
There are two points I want to make. The first is that under this Bill there is no right to debate exemptions, As I understand it, in Section 11 of the principal Act it is stated that any power of the Minister to make Regulations or Orders should be exercisable by Statutory Instrument, and I understand that all the Regulations that would be made under the principal Act could be debated on a Prayer. I should therefore have thought that all the exemptions to these Regulations should be capable of being debated on a Prayer, but I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that that is not so, because, in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill on 3rd December, he said:

…it is not possible to write into the Bill an undertaking of that kind."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2158.]
Although I can understand, as I am sure everyone does, the need for Regulations to be made at the Minister's discretion, it seems to me that his discretion in this case—the discretion of making exemptions—is quite without the capacity of this House to discuss. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will give some answer to this point when he speaks on this Clause.
The second point is, in my view, of even greater importance, because under this amending Bill there is no provision whatsoever for consultation with the interests concerned when the exemptions are made. Under the principal Act, in Section 1, subsections 1 and 2, all the Regulations made by the Minister are made after consultation with such organisations as appear to him to be representative both of the owners and also of the seamen, but apparently exemptions under this Bill are not covered, and I quote again from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading:
There is an actual reason for this omission, which is that it has not been suggested by either side of the industry, by those who have taken part in the conversations which led up to this Measure, that consultation will be possible in the case of every individual ship. … Consultation in every individual case, we believe, is not practicable as a piece Of machinery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2156–7.]
I should like the Minister to explain this at greater length when he speaks, because it seems to me that under the wording of this amending Bill it will be possible for him to make exemptions of ships or complete classes of ships from any Regulations made under the Bill without either the House having any right to discuss it on a Prayer or the unions and shipowners having any right to consultation with the Minister before the exemptions are made.
This Amendment seeks to close two loopholes in the Bill. The first is with regard to Parliamentary control, in that we should be allowed to debate exemptions as we are allowed to debate basic Regulations under the Act. The second is that the machinery of consultation should be extended so that the unions and shipowners can have some say in exemptions of this kind. It seems to me that if this Amendment or something


like it is not accepted by the Government, there will be no limit to the exemptions that can be made and that, in a sense, Section 1 of the principal Act will be completely destroyed by this amending Bill.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): I understand the reasons the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and his hon. Friend have put down this Amendment, but I hope that after some explanation they will realise that the purpose of their Amendment might well be defeated by the Amendment itself. That is a paradox which I hope fully to explain.
First, it is quite clear that, if this Amendment were accepted, there would be consultation with the representative organisations of both seafarers and shipowners, no matter how small or how detailed might be the exemption which it was desirable to grant. I will give the Committee some examples of the kind of incidents which might arise and for which these powers to exempt are really necessary, and I think they will meet the hon. Gentleman's main point on which he asked for information. But before I do that, I would remind the Committee of what may seem a ridiculous position, that, unless the Minister has powers to grant practical exemptions, the whole standard of regulation might have to be brought down below the standard which we shall be laying before the House in due course when the draft Regulations are made.
One of the requirements of the draft Regulations which we have now agreed in detail with both sides of the industry and which will shortly come before the House will be this. The Regulations will require a settee to be provided in an officer's room. It should be six feet long, but the Minister will be enabled to ignore this Regulation in ships of under 400 tons gross. It would be absurd to go through the whole procedure of consulting all organisations of seafarers and shipowners in order to make a Regulation to allow in one cabin in one ship the size of a settee to be reduced from six feet to five feet because the structure of the ship did not make it possible to have a six-feet settee.

Mr. Benn: Surely it would be possible to arrive at some general arrangement

with the unions and shipowners so that detailed matters of this kind could be settled without using the full machinery of consultation. The question we are interested in is the possibility that exemptions will be totally excluded from consultation.

Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that is what has already been done in the draft Regulations. Other hon. Members have been worried on this point. I will give another example. The draft Regulations will specify minimum clearances between floors and berths, between lower and upper berths, and between berths and deckhead beams. Obviously, for an individual ship, or even for a group of ships, it simply would not be practicable to go through the formal procedure of consultation, when we consider the time that would be taken up in the making of a Regulation and the laying of it before this House. It would mean taking workable Regulations and making them unworkable.
I now come to the safeguards, which I suggest are very strong indeed and which prevent the things of which the hon. Gentleman is frightened from happening. First of all, in the case of convention ships, that is, ships covered by the I.L.O. Convention of 1949, no matter what is in this Bill there can be no relaxation of requirements, but there may be a variation to produce results not less favourable than international standards.
The next safeguard is that our draft Regulations will fix higher standards than those required by the Convention, and, what is more, these will be applied to ships outside convention requirements, principally small ships. The next safeguard is an obvious one, but there is a point in it which was not made clear. The draft Regulations, which have at present been agreed in detail with the seafarers and shipowners and which are now being put into legal form before coming before the House, will set out the particular requirements from which exemptions may well prove necessary. These have been foreseen and will be specified in the draft Regulations as far as possible; but when these Regulations come before the House, it will be made clear that the exemptions are accepted by the seafarers and shipowners, and they will be specified in the Regulations.

Mr. S. S. Awbery: May we have an assurance that there will be consultation regarding Regulations which will apply in future? The Government are cutting out that consultation altogether.

Mr. Maclay: That will depend on the form of Regulations made. At the moment we have under contemplation only the one set of highly detailed and technical Regulations which, as I have already explained, will be coming before the House.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the Minister is exempting all Regulations? According to the Bill and according to the 1948 Act, there must be consultations between the owners, the men and the Government.

Mr. Maclay: The Regulations are made under the 1948 Act, and we come back to the point at which I started, that if we had no powers to make exemptions, that Act could not function properly.
The next point is that Regulations to give effect to that Act are at present under contemplation. They have been fully discussed and will come before the House for consideration in due course. If further Regulations are made in future, the same procedure will be followed. The only difficulty in which hon. Members find themselves is that in this Bill I am asking for powers which I believe to be essential in order to make the Regulations work. So far as future Regulations are concerned, I should not like to say anything at the moment. I can only assume that they would be dealt with in this way.
I now come to the final safeguard. It happens that in 1949 the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act, which was piloted through the House by my predecessor, contained precisely the same powers of exemption; these have never been questioned by seafarers or shipowners. They have accepted them in that case and they are also in entire agreement with our proposals in this case.
4.0 p.m.
There is one final safeguard which, although it is not written into the Bill, is one which I think hon. Members must feel is a strong one. The relationship between my Ministry and the unions, and,

for that matter, between the unions and the shipowners, have been extremely good and close for years. If any individual sailor should see something happen on a ship which he does not like, if he thinks it is breaking the spirit of the Regulations, obviously he will get hold of a local union official and he will go straight to the union, which will get into immediate touch with my Department. That is how this works.
We have the protection I have quoted and the whole spirit of co-operation which has existed on this matter of seamen's accommodation for years. We have the power and the obvious right of the unions to come and argue. But, above all, in this case there is the difficulty that if I were to accept the Amendment, we should have to re-draft the Regulations in such a way that it would lower the whole standard of the requirements if we were to make certain that we would not be held up by the cumbersome procedure which would follow if the Amendment were accepted. That is the difficulty. One cannot secure consultation of the kind required without serious delays.
I assure hon. Members that in a great many of the cases which they are afraid might arise, it would be a matter for the marine superintendents and one of my surveyors, actually on board the ship where work is being done to bring the ship up to standard, to decide on the spot how this could best be done. The decision is made on the spot. If the matter had to go to full consultation, it would bring the Regulations into complete disrepute and the procedure would not work. Accepting as I do the good intentions of the Amendment and of those who sponsor it, I trust they will realise that, if we were to adopt it, it would be an unworkable proposition. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Benn: There is one final anomaly. Under Section 11 of the principal Act,
(1) Any power of the Minister to make regulations or orders under the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
This amending Bill which the Minister is presenting does not affect Section 11 of the principal Act. It simply amends his powers earlier on. Even if my Amendment is not accepted, surely Section 11 remains and the power of exemption, like


the power of making any Regulations, will have by law to be exercised by Statutory Instrument and, therefore, the House must be able to debate it on a Prayer.

Mr. Maclay: With respect, I do not think that is right. The power to exempt is one for the Minister under conditions which I have outlined. Obviously he could not have Regulations laid before the House to decide whether a settee should be reduced by six inches below the regulation six feet. That would really be carrying the law to fantastic lengths.

Mr. Benn: Surely every power the Minister exercises under this Bill derives from the Act and must be covered by Section 11 to which I have referred. It may be there is a mistake and that the Minister is not aware of it. Surely his own powers derive from the Act and all his powers from the Act are debatable on Prayers because they have to be exercised by Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Maclay: I am afraid the way the hon. Member has put this is new to me, but I do not think he can be correct, because if there is a deliberate amending Bill which gives power to exempt, then that must be valid.

Mr. Benn: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point I am making. This Bill gives him power to exempt. It adds to the many powers he already had under the principal Act and therefore this new power, like those other powers which he has under the principal Act, must be exercised by Statutory Instrument. That was what I thought when I read the Bill, and if the Parliamentary Secretary had not told me on Second Reading that it was not so, I should have thought the law was clear. I am simply saying that these powers to make exemptions are simply new powers added to the Minister's other powers, all of which powers must be exercised by Statutory Instrument.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Awbery: The difficulties that have been pointed out to the Minister today were all in existence in 1948, yet when the 1948 Act was before the House the Minister gave his full approval to all

that was said and done. He said at that time that he was pleased to find himself on the side of the then Minister and that years of
…steady, useful co-operation in the discussions between employers and unions through the National Maritime Board …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 844.]
had brought this about. If we are not very careful, the present Bill will take that consultation away altogether from the unions.
Clause 1 of the Bill says that the Minister "may exempt." Section 1 of the original Act says that, after consultation with the owners and unions, the Minister may make regulations respecting crew accommodation to be provided in specified classes of ships. In future there will be no consultation, except at the will, wish and favour of the Minister, and not by Act of Parliament. I want it laid down in the Bill that no alteration must be made without consultation with the men in the industry who know most about the workers concerned.
I said in the Second Reading debate that we were putting too much power into the hands of one individual. We are giving more power to the Minister of Transport under this Bill than we are giving to any other Minister. I am rather afraid of that, not because of the present Minister, who understands ships and has spent his life in the shipping industry, but because a new Minister may come along who does not understand the industry. I want to ensure that whatever conditions and Regulations are laid down, there are consultations with the unions, with the men concerned, with the Ministry and with the shipowners.
The result of the 1948 Act was a tripartite arrangement between the Government, the shipowners and the unions concerned. There is no reason why the same consultation should not take place in future on the construction of crew quarters in ships. The Minister will control the living conditions of one-third of the sailors of the world. I think we are giving him too great powers in that control. These men spend practically the whole of their lives in the living accommodation on these ships. We have to be careful to see that the accommodation is proper, satisfactory and meets with the approval of the men.
If the Minister says, "The power given to me would not be used in an arbitrary manner, it would be used in a humane way," why have the power at all? Why not say, "I am prepared in the future to consult with the organisations regarding these Regulations in the same manner as I have done in the past"? The Regulations which have been discussed recently have been part of a tripartite arrangement between the State, the owners and the men. Why not continue this arrangement so that the men will have decent accommodation on the ships? I suggest that the Minister is taking too much power to himself.

Mr. Benn: As I did not have the good fortune to get a reply from the Minister on the point which I made in moving my Amendment, I should like to return to that point. I am glad to see the Attorney-General here, because I suspect that this is a question of interpretation on which we may need his opinion.
If I understood the Minister rightly, he told us that Clause 1 gives him powers which he exercises in some way other than by the use of a Statutory Instrument. From what I understand from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading and from the Minister's speech today, the Regulations for exemption which the Minister makes will not be subject to any sort of supervision by Parliament. I hope that I am wrong about this, but that is what I understood.
It seems to me to be perfectly clear that these exemptions, when made under this amending Bill, must be debateable on a Prayer. The marginal notation to the amending Bill reads thus:
Power of Minister of Transport to exempt from requirements as to crew accommodation.
Section 11 of the principal Act says that any power of the Minister to do anything must be exerciseable by Statutory Instrument. Therefore, I should like to ask whether the Minister does not agree that, in effect, my Amendment was unnecessary in that every exemption he makes, even though it may be altering the height of a settee or lowering a bunk or altering the thickness of glass in portholes, is bound to be submitted to Parliament in the form of a Statutory Instrument and is bound to be debatable on a Prayer.
We on this side of the Committee are not opposed to the principle of exemption at all, because we are perfectly aware that if it were necessary to make Regulations suitable for the lowest standard of crew accommodation, the inability to make exemptions would lead to a lowering of the general standard. Nor do I intend any criticism of the relations between the Minister or the Ministry and the unions. It seems to me that if the Minister is right, he is telling us that he will be able to make Regulations which, once made, will not come before Parliament in any form at all.

Mr. Maclay: I hope I have understood correctly the point which has been put to me. It seems to me that the hon. Member is talking about Regulations. Regulations do come before Parliament, as is set out in the Bill, but this is purely a question of exemptions from Regulations, and I am informed that it is clear in the drafting that it is only the power to make Regulations and Orders that has to be exercised by Statutory Instrument. That surely meets the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Benn: Is an exemption not an Order?

Mr. Maclay: No. I think that is the foundation of our misunderstanding. I am trying to say that we are dealing here with exemptions and not Regulations.
4.15 p.m.
If I may return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), I think I must stress again the very important point that the draft Regulations which will come before Parliament have been discussed and agreed in detail with the unions and the shipowners' organisations. Equally this little Bill, which I am having a certain amount of difficulty in piloting through this Committee, has been discussed in detail with the unions and the shipowners' organisations.
I am informed that they are entirely clear in their minds that this Bill is desirable in its present form, and I do not think they have any doubts that if we tied it up too rigidly we should not get the best results. In view of the assurance which has been given, and the fact that there is no argument about this Bill by those who are intimately concerned with


the detailed problems which must arise in the application of Regulations of this kind, I feel hopeful that the Committee will agree to this Clause.

Mr. Awbery: If the difficulties mentioned by the Minister were known at the time of the 1948 Act, why were they not raised?

Mr. Maclay: I think that when I made my speech, I had not realised that this power was not in that Act. Anybody going into the matter in detail will, I hope, realise that these exemption powers are necessary to make a desirable correction.

Mr. Alfred Barnes: The Minister went rather a long way round before eventually he arrived at the position of making it clear that the Regulations are subject to annulment but that this matter of exemption can apply to individual ships. I thought the Minister might very well have followed on by giving my hon. Friends a clear and specific assurance that in all these matters he will consult fully both sides of the industry. That is a practice which has continued all the way through.
When we were dealing with the Second Reading, the Minister gave that assurance in a general way, and the only point of difficulty which has arisen in the passage of this amending Bill is the anxiety of some of my hon. Friends that this deals with the exemption of certain ships from standards that Parliament has laid down. My hon. Friends wanted a specific assurance that consultations between the Ministry and the industry would apply specifically to matters of exemption. The Minister should have no difficulty in giving that definite assurance.
With regard to the alleged omission, in my view there was no omission. When I was dealing with the 1948 Act, I made it plain to Parliament at the time that the Government could not ratify this particular Convention until further negotiations had taken place. Those negotiations have taken place, and they have brought out some of the peculiarities which exist in our Merchant Navy. We have, for instance, a type of ship like the "Queens" that no other nation in the world owns. Therefore, they could

not be described as a class. Yet the standard of accommodation in vessels of that kind is not below but above the average, and this amending Bill which is really an addition to the 1948 Act, does not in any way interfere with or lessen the value of Section 1 of that Act. It specifically places on the Minister the obligation to consult these various bodies.
I know from my own experience that the degree of co-operation between the Minister and both sides of the industry is as full and complete as any form of consultation that I have known in my public life. That being so, I feel that if the Minister will give my hon. Friends a definite unqualified assurance that he will always consult both sides of the industry in regard to exemptions, we ought to be able to pass on to the Third Reading and restore the unanimity which has always been characteristic of our merchant shipping debates.

Mr. Awbery: I am sure that we are all agreed that the high standard of British shipping should be maintained, and we on these benches feel that it can be maintained if there is full consultation. If we can have the assurance which has been requested by my right hon. Friend that there will always be that co-operation and full consultation to which he referred, we shall be perfectly satisfied.

Mr. Benn: I should like to ask one final question. The Minister has told us that exemptions are not made by Regulation; they are in a special category and they are not debatable on a Prayer. I should like to ask what form these exemptions will take. Will they be published? Will the union officials and Members of Parliament be able to see the exemptions? If they are not made by Statutory Instruments, I do not know how they can be made at all.

Mr. Maclay: I understand that what happens is that one of the Minister's surveyors on the job will note that an exemption has been given. That will not be published in public form because it would be quite fantastic to think that all the possible small details could be published. Union officials will be able to ask to see whether any exemptions have been made. The exact detailed procedure is difficult to visualise because we cannot


foresee the conditions in which it will operate. It should be possible for anybody to know if an exemption has been made. I thought I had made it clear throughout the discussion that I am quite sure there will always be the close and continuing association with the unions that there has been in the past.

Mr. Ede: I have met a very large number of seamen in my constituency. I understand that the marine surveyor goes round and makes a note in his book. That is very convenient for him; but how is that note conveyed either to the Ministry or to anyone else? If it is a question whether a certain ship was up to standard, how is the fact that an exemption has been granted to be made known to the person who challenges it?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot at this moment give the precise machinery. I should be dishonest if I said I could state exactly what is the procedure. I understand that when an exemption of that kind is made —which means the Minister's powers have been used—it reaches the Minister through the report of his surveyor. I am quite sure that if any union official were concerned about what was happening and wanted to know what exemptions had been granted, there would be no difficulty in his finding out.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; Read the Third time, and passed.

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES, &C.) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the sums payable by way of salary, pension or allowances in respect of certain judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise any charge on public funds which may be directly or indirectly attributable—

(a) to the Act providing, as from any date not earlier than the beginning of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, for the salaries of the judges and magistrates mentioned in the Table set out below to be increased to the annual amounts there shown;
(b) to the Act enabling the salaries of stipendiary magistrates outside London to

be increased retrospectively as from any such date, and making provision as to the maximum salary where there has been a retrospective increase in the salary of a metropolitan magistrate;
(c) to the Act providing for the payment (out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund) of circuit allowances to the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary in Scotland and to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and of travelling allowances to sheriffs-substitute in Scotland;
(d) to the Act providing that in the case of a judge of the Supreme Court, of the Court of Session, or of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, previous service as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary may be treated for pension purposes as if it were service as such a judge.

The Table above referred to


Judge or Magistrate
Increased salary


Judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland (except the Lord Chief Justice)
£3,500


County court Judge
£2,800


Chief metropolitan magistrate
£2,800


Other metropolitan magistrates
£2,500

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES, &C.) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(COUNTY COURT JUDGES, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES AND CHAIR- MEN OF LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS (SALARIES).)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly about a matter which has received a wide measure of support, but it did occur to me that the Committee should have a little more information before being asked to agree to this Clause. It would not be right if, by enacting this Clause, we were to distort the system of judicial salaries. For that reason, I wondered whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would be able to assist the Committee by giving them some information on the effect which this Clause will have upon the general pattern.
The illustration which I desire the Committee to bear in mind concerns the


official referees. They sit, physically, in very exalted places. One can reach them only by finding one's way up a winding staircase or by using an electric lift, and when one finds them they are generally dealing with such sums of money that, if totted up, it is clear—

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not in order. The Committee is dealing with Clause 1.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I desire to remain in order, Sir Charles. I submit that if the salaries of county court judges are increased by this Clause we shall distort the pattern in such a way as to leave the official referees behind, and I think the Committee would feel it undesirable to enact this Clause. I seek to remain in order.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not in order. He might have been on the Second Reading, but not now.

Mr. Michael Higgs: There is one small matter which I think would probably be in order, and which is rather on the lines of the point my hon. and learned Friend has just been raising. It is on the question of salaries paid to provincial stipendiary magistrates, referred to in Clause 1 (4) of the Bill. In subsection (4) the Secretary of State is authorised to make a direction as to the salary to be paid to a provincial stipendiary magistrate by the authority under whom he is employed.
As I understand the position, Parliament has to fix the salary to be paid to metropolitan magistrates amongst others, because they are paid out of public funds —out of the Treasury—whereas, in the case of the provincial stipendiary magistrate, the Secretary of State makes a direction to the authority employing that magistrate, and that authority actually pays the salary. I have often wondered why it should be that the citizens of a city like Birmingham should pay, through the rates, the salaries of their own stipendiary magistrates and, through taxes, the salaries of the metropolitan magistrates; whereas the citizens of London do not have to do the same thing; they have only to pay half.
What I seek from my right hon. and learned Friend, if he is prepared to give it, is an assurance that, just as the House

is taking the initiative of doing what is necessary to see that the salaries of metropolitan magistrates and county court judges and others are put on a proper footing, having regard to today's situation, the Secretary of State will, under subsection (4) of this Bill, do the same for provincial stipendiaries, and, in so doing, that he will do two things.
First, with regard to the rearguard of provincial stipendiaries, some of whose salaries are far and away below what is laid down in Clause 1 for metropolitan magistrates, that he will bring those "backwoodsmen"—if I may so call them —of that branch of the learned profession into line with those who earn and are paid higher salaries in this city.
Secondly, he should have regard in giving directions, particularly amongst the higher paid provincial stipendiaries, to the relation which their salaries have in the past borne to those of the metropolitan magistrates. As I understand it, cities like Birmingham have their stipendiary magistrates paid at the same rate as the chief metropolitan magistrate. Then there are certain provincial cities a little below the standard of the first grade whose stipendiaries are paid on the same basis as the other metropolitan magistrates.
I hope that as far as possible, when the directions of the Secretary of State are given under subsection (4), it will be ensured that the pattern which now exists is maintained and that the same proportions are preserved.

4.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster), I would explain that official referees are not covered, nor is it required that they should be covered by this Bill, but I can assure him that their position is being carefully considered and that they will have proper treatment.
I am afraid I am not in a position to make any statement about stipendiary magistrates in the provinces, but the subject has already been discussed. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) discussed it on a previous occasion, and it will be the subject of further discussion and consultation. I do not think it would be right for me to say any more about it today, except that no doubt the considerations of equity and fairness to


which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) referred will be carefully taken into account.

Mr. Ede: Does that mean that the Home Secretary has this matter under his active consideration and is in touch with the local authorities in the areas in which the stipendiary magistrates are employed?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I cannot say exactly what is the position of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I know the matter is under consideration.

Mr. Ede: The Home Secretary has two Under-Secretaries, neither of whom seems to have been able to turn up today. Perhaps they are both learning Welsh.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF JUSTICIARY (CIRCUIT ALLOWANCES).)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. John Wheatley: On a point of order. There is an Amendment in my name in relation to Clause 2, the purpose of which is to have the additional emoluments granted under the Clause to the Scottish judges antedated to the date at which the increased emoluments of the English and Northern Ireland judges take effect. It seems fair and equitable that that should be done and I should like to know for what reason the Amendment is out of order.

The Chairman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take another look at the Money Resolution he will see that paragraph (a) covers only the Schedule at the bottom of the Resolution. By his Amendment he is trying to bring into the Bill something which is not covered by the Money Resolution. The Government have had to cover their own Clause 1 (3), by including it in the Money Resolution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for something to be done which the Government could not do unless it were put in their Money Resolution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment is, therefore, out of order, and I did not call it.

Mr. Wheatley: I am obliged to you, Sir Charles, for the explanation. It only makes it all the more regrettable that the Money Resolution was drawn in its present form, to which I objected.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before we accept this Clause, we should have some elucidation from the Lord Advocate as to exactly how the new scale of expenses will affect Scotland. The Lord Advocate may remember that on the last occasion I put what I thought was a very relevant question to him, and he looked as if I had asked a very indecent question indeed, and then he disappeared. Later, I sought further elucidation from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. At Question Time on 4th February, I asked the Attorney-General:
…what allowances, in addition to their salaries, are received for circuit court expenses for judges in England and Wales; and what is his estimate of the cost of the proposal that such allowances shall apply to Scotland.
I secured information on that occasion which made me look upon this Clause with further suspicion, because the Attorney-General said:
Since the year 1884, allowances at the rate of £7 10s. a day have been paid to H.M. judges going circuit in England and Wales for every day in which they are necessarily absent from London. In Scotland, where the circumstances are very different,
—and I agree that they are different—
the allowances for circuit expenses which will be payable if Clause 2 of the Judicial Offices (Salaries, &amp;c.) Bill becomes law in its present form, will be determined from time to time. The annual cost is unlikely to exceed £450.
I asked a supplementary question:
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if £7 10s. or anything like it is allowed for Scottish judges coming to Ayr, public opinion will want to know whether they are going to the High Court or to the races?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 630.]
Could we have an assurance that Scottish judges will not receive for circuit expenses what I think is the very excessive sum of £7 10s. a day? Even in these days, even with copious allowances for whisky, it is impossible to justify a judge receiving £7 10s. a day in allowances.

Mr. Wheatley: On a point of order. Is it right to suggest that an allowance for whisky is given to Scottish judges? I thought it was a rule of the House not to allow murmuring of judges.

The Chairman: It does not matter whether they spend their expenses on whisky or lemonade.

Mr. Hughes: My case is hypothetical. If allowances are not made for whisky—and I should not dare to make a suggestion to the contrary—then the argument of the former Attorney-General surely means that not so much as £7 10s. a day would be required. If either the present Lord Advocate or the ex-Lord Advocate are raised to the judges' bench they will, presumably, live in Edinburgh. Supposing they travel to Glasgow. Are they to be paid, in addition to their salaries, a sum of £7 10s. a day? If they stay in Glasgow for four days in a week, are these judges to be entitled to allowances of £30 for the four days?
If that is not to be the situation, can we be told exactly what it is? I do not wish to be ungenerous to the judges, but I suggest that these circuit expenses should approximate more closely to the expenses incurred by members of local authorities when they go on their business. We are not entitled, in what appears to be a non-controversial Bill, to give very considerable allowances, unjustifiable out-of-pocket expenses, to judges at a time when we are being urged on all occasions to exercise the maximum of discretion and economy. I ask the Lord Advocate to give us some assurance that this excessive scale, which apparently prevails in England, will not apply to Scotland and that something more reasonable will be put in the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I should not have intervened in what appears to be a purely Scottish part of the Bill but for the rather backhanded way in which the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) made an attack upon the allowances paid to English judges. I imagine I should be out of order if I pursued the matter very far, but I hope an opportunity will be given to answer what the hon. Gentleman said.
He suggested that these allowances should be similar to the scale of allowances in the case of representatives of local authorities. It is evident that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of what has to be paid by English judges out of the allowances given to them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Tell us the worst.

Mr. Marlowe: I cannot go into detail, but judges have to take with them a retinue, which is extremely expensive; they have to maintain the very considerable dignity of Her Majesty's judges on circuit; they have to entertain on quite a lavish scale; they have to meet various high officers, including the sheriffs of the county; and they are put to considerable expense indeed. I think that anybody who has any knowledge of the matter will know that the amount of these allowances, which was fixed 60 or 70 years ago, is by no means excessive in modern circumstances. Indeed, many judges find it difficult to carry out the duties which are required of them on these allowances.

Mr. Rankin: I do not propose to interfere in any way with the manner in which a judge may dispose of his expenses—whether he chooses to utilise them along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), of on the lines suggested by you, Sir Charles. I leave that to their choice.
However, there is one point on which I feel we should have some enlightenment. Subsection (2) states that the allowances are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament. I submit that if we are to make these funds available to meet these expenses we ought to have a rough idea of the total amount of money that we have to provide.
I submit that that is a figure of which some assessment ought to have been made by the Lord Advocate or his learned colleague the Attorney-General sitting beside him, and I feel we are entitled to receive an answer to the question. What is the total sum that the Government believe is necessary to meet this outlay?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard what his hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said. He referred to an answer to a Question, in which he was told that the estimated figure was £450 a year.

Mr. Rankin: A year?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Wheatley: I think it is desirable that I should say a word in view of the discussion that has taken place, because,


in my opinion, this is a proposal that is fully justified and of which I personally fully approve. When the salaries of the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, the Judges of the Court of Session, were consolidated by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, it was specifically enacted that the salaries would include circuit expenses that had been paid prior to that date. The normal salary of a judge of the Court of Session is only £3,600 a year, compared with the £5,000 which is paid to English High Court judges, and the salaries of the Scottish judges have not been increased since 1887, despite the fact that the circuit expenses which they have to bear out of their salaries have become increasingly heavier as the years have passed.
It has to be remembered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has pointed out, that the English judges do get circuit expenses at a fairly substantial rate and that at the present time the Scottish judges do not; and I cannot see that there is any justification in principle for the continuation of that differentiation. When a Scottish judge goes on circuit he does not indulge in the wholesale entertainment referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), but he must have appropriate accommodation in an hotel in the circuit town to which he goes.
He does not only require a bedroom, but he requires a sitting room in which to work in the evenings, as the nature of the work on which he is engaged is highly confidential and makes it undesirable for him to perform that work in the public rooms of a public hotel. He has to prepare his examination of the evidence that he has heard in the case. He has got to go into the law to enable him to prepare his charge to the jury. He is dealing with confidential documents. Manifestly, that is not the type of work which can be done in the public rooms of an hotel.
Moreover, I think it is desirable that he should be protected in a way from the embarrassment of being spoken to in the public rooms of an hotel by people who indiscreetly may wish to discuss with him the case he is trying.
4.45 p.m.
In these circumstances I think that the case for privacy for the judge is fully

made out, and, having regard to the fact that he has to bear the expenses of that out of his own pocket at the present time this change, in my opinion, is overdue. I did make inquiries at the time when this was first mooted, and I found that the charge in an hotel in any of the big centres for the type of accommodation required was quite considerable.
I think that in all other branches of the public service such expenses are met out of the public funds, and also in industry, be it public industry or private industry, expenses of this nature, when people go from their base, are always met out of company funds. I think that, when one remembers that, the principle here is entirely justified. On the merits, therefore, I can see no justifiable ground for opposition to the proposal; in fact, I am very glad that I was associated with the negotiations with the judges last summer which brought about this badly needed reform.
I have only one other point to make. It is in reference to the nature of the Clause and the way in which it has been drafted. I am sorry that it does not follow the pattern of the Clause which refers to the English judges, in that it does not make the payments retrospective to 1st July, 1951. I tried to embody that protest in an Amendment which you, Sir Charles, ruled out of order, and, accordingly, I cannot develop it. Subject to that minor criticism—and I leave my protest in this comparatively mute and tacit form—I commend this Clause to the Committee.

Mr. James H. Hoy: It is a little surprising that two of my hon. Friends should be pressing the Attorney-General to declare what is to be the law in Scotland in regard to this matter. I ask the Lord Advocate to say, without ambiguity—because, after all, the Lord Advocate's Department, along with the Scottish Office, must have made some estimate of what this is to cost, and must have concluded how many of these judges would be travelling on circuit, and at how much per day they were to be paid —what those estimates are. I am certain that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could tell us this information he would remove any misconceptions about what the allowances are which are to be paid to the Scottish judges.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: As, from these benches, certain observations have fallen I think it is incumbent on some of us who practise in the law to say why we support this Clause, and to state that we support it. It has always been regarded as undesirable in this country that judges should stay in hotels at all, and, therefore, in all the circuit towns there was provided something rather in the nature of a Victorian mansion for the judges.
The judges have to provide the staff for the mansions—the cooks, or any of the servants—and these large establishments have to be maintained by Her Majesty's judges during the course of the assizes. Her Majesty's judges are expected to provide entertainment on a fairly lavish scale for the local dignitaries.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. In this debate, up till now, three legal Members have taken part. Is it not proper for legal Members, who may, presumably, become judges at some time, to declare their interest?

The Chairman: That is not necessary at the moment.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I would disclaim any such interest—certainly, such a premature interest.
However, I wish that there should come from this side of the Committee a voice in support of the proposal to pay these allowances. I think that the allowances, if anything, are inadequate at today's rates. What people so often fail to remember is that these salaries and allowances were fixed in other times. We on these benches have pressed for increased salaries and increased allowances for all manner of persons, but the judges have not had such increases and are still having to provide the same services with the same old allowances.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): Perhaps I might add a word or two on this Clause, in view of the questions which have been asked about the actual amounts. I ask the Committee to agree to this Clause, and I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley), for the help he has given. I shall not delay the Committee by going into details to justify it; I merely want to give the figures; for which more than one hon. Member has asked. There is no intention, under this

Clause, to make extravagant allowances. The object is to secure, as far as possible, the covering of the outlays to which the judges in Scotland are put on criminal circuits. The Clause is, therefore, drawn in elastic form, so that the allowances are to be such as
the Secretary of State may from time to time, with the concurrence of the Treasury, determine.
We have made an estimate of what we think these expenses will be, and taking into account the fact that the judge will have railway fares to pay, and that where the sitting lasts more than one night he will have hotel accommodation to provide for, the expenses it is estimated he will, on average, require to meet are something in the neighbourhood of two guineas where he does not require to stay overnight and five guineas where he has to stay overnight.
Hearing those figures hon. Members will realise that, taken on the average, where there are journeys sometimes to Aberdeen or Inverness and other journeys which are shorter and less expensive, say, to Glasgow, these are in no way excessive. The total sum it is estimated will be required—and I think this was what the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) wanted to know—to be provided by Parliament per annum in respect of these expenses is £450. That, of course, is not for one judge but is spread among something like 12 judges.
Accordingly, the amount involved here is not excessive. It is, in my view, an expense which should be met in this way, and I consequently recommend the Clause to the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SHERIFFS-SUBSTITUTE (TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES).)

Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Wheatley: I rise to speak on this Clause with a view to submitting a point which arises on an Amendment I had put down, but which has not been called—in page 3, line 20, at the end to insert:
(2) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.
At the earlier stages of the Bill I queried the necessity for this Clause at


all, because in the past it was felt possible and competent to pay travelling allowances of this nature to sheriffs-substitute; and, in fact, at present four of the sheriffs-substitute are in receipt of such travelling allowances, which have been compounded at £100 a year. On Second Reading the Solicitor-General for England explained that this Clause had been introduced merely by way of removing a doubt. In my opinion, there was no doubt at all, but if Her Majesty's Government feel that a Clause of this nature is desirable, though not necessary, I for one would not oppose it.
However, having regard to the fact that only four sheriffs-substitute are in receipt of such allowances, it is manifestly desirable that such payments should be extended beyond those four, because in the outlying parts of Scotland almost every sheriff-substitute has to journey to more than one court within his jurisdiction, and with the heavy cost of travel at the present time this is becoming a heavy financial burden to those sheriffs-substitute not at present in receipt of such allowances. In my opinion, therefore, the Clause is, in itself, fully justified.
In so far as these payments have been made in the past without statutory authority, and if this be merely a removal of doubt Clause, it seems to me that it would be possible, without in any way traversing your Ruling, Sir Charles, in relation to the Financial Resolution, to ask the Lord Advocate whether the payments of these travelling allowances could be made retrospective to 1st July, 1951, to the additional sheriffs-substitute. If that were done, although it is not specifically provided for in the Bill, it would be done under the administrative arrangements which have appertained heretofore, and would in my opinion be the fulfilment of an undertaking given by me at the time to the sheriffs-substitute that any such increases in their emoluments would be dated from the same date as the increases to the English and Irish judges.
In the circumstances, in recommending the Clause to the Committee, I ask the Lord Advocate if he could give any indication whether these travelling allowances could be made retrospective to 1st July, 1951.

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. The

sole purpose of this Clause is to remove doubts for the future. It has been possible and competent to pay expenses of this kind to sheriffs-substitute in the past; and, as he says, four of them have been in receipt of these allowances. The intention is to extend similar allowances to the rest of the sheriffs-substitute and not confine the allowance to the four at present enjoying it. That could be done without legislation; it could be done administratively, just as we do it for the four at present.
I am pleased to be able to say that we intend to make the allowances to the other sheriffs-substitute retrospective to 1st July so as to put them on precisely the same footing, as from that date, as the four who are already in receipt of the allowances. We do that because the undertaking was given, and we are determined to honour undertakings when they have been given.

Mr. Rankin: On the last Clause I ask whether the Lord Advocate could tell us the total cost of this change, and I was then referred to the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I did not realise that the Government leaned so heavily upon my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, the Lord Advocate later saw fit to reply to my query, and I put the same query here. Can he tell us the total amount that will be involved in meeting this charge, in view of the fact that back money is to be paid to 1st July of last year?

The Lord Advocate: I am afraid I have not got precise figures. There is £100 allowed to each of the existing sheriffs-substitute who get these travelling allowances. The intention is that one of the others, who has very considerable distances to go, should get £100. The remaining sheriffs-substitute will get allowances of from £75 down to £10, according to the distances they have to travel.

Mr. Rankin: Will that cover air travel?

The Lord Advocate: It will cover travel by air.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF NORTHERN IRELAND (SALARIES AND CIRCUIT ALLOWANCES).)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that at this time we should keep a very vigilant eye on every item of national expenditure, especially as this appears to be an agreed Bill between two sets of lawyers. Because two sets of lawyers agree that certain provisions must be put into a Bill, it does not follow that it naturally becomes a non-controversial Bill. Could we be told exactly what expenditure is to be incurred under this Clause which applies to Northern Ireland?
I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the progress of this Bill through the House of Commons, but I understand that a circular requesting economy has gone to every Government Department, except, apparently, to the Law Department. In this Clause we are asked to give a salary, which will amount to £3,500 a year, for each of the judges of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland. This is at a time when we are receiving warnings about inflation. We are being told that the workers must not ask for increased wages; and here we have a Bill which is setting in being the whole mischievous spiral of inflation. Does not this apply to the lawyers? What justification is there for legal gentlemen coming along and saying at the present time, "The £3,000 a year man is hard up and demands an increase of £10 a week"?
Those of us who represent mining constituencies are telling the miners, "Do not ask for a rise; this is not the time for increasing the burden of national expenditure"—and here I am, as a representative of miners in the House of Commons, asked to agree to an increase of about £10 a week to a judge in Northern Ireland. I do not know the answer to that. I should, however, like to know exactly to what we are being committed under this Clause. Will this not mean that, not only will the judges be given this, but that the gentlemen associated with the courts will come in for a rise, too? Will it not apply to all legal gentlemen who are clerks to the county courts in Northern Ireland and

different clerks right through this particular industry, if "industry" is the right name to apply to it?
I suggest that this Bill has been drafted without any attention at all being given to the paramount need of the moment, which is economy. I suggest that we should get a satisfactory answer to these questions.

Professor Savory: The very small amount asked for is for two judges to get an extra £500 each. At present the ordinary judges are only getting£3,000[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and it is proposed that they should in future get £3,500 each. It is not proposed to raise the salaries of the Lord Justices of Appeal, and there I think a mistake is being made and that they also should have a proportionate rise, because at the present moment they are getting £3,500 and it is proposed to leave them at their existing salaries.
As for the Lord Chief Justice, it is proposed that his travelling expenses should be paid, which surely is very reasonable. It must be remembered that he was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary here in the House of Lords, earning a salary of £6,000 a year, and he voluntarily relinquished that and accepted his present post. His love for Northern Ireland was such that he accepted the post of Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, with a reduction in salary of £1,500 a year, and surely no one will cavil at the fact that it is now proposed to pay his travelling expenses. Further it is also proposed—and this will not be objected to, I think, on either side—to allow him to count the time which he spent as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary towards his pension.
We have been asked for precise figures by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I have here the White Paper of the House of Commons, No. 201 of 1951, which shows exactly what the travelling expenses were for the four judges who were entitled to them, excluding, as I have already pointed out, the Lord Chief Justice. According to this White Paper, the total amount spent last year was only £375. In view of the deliberate devaluation of the £ sterling, with its disastrous consequences—as I found out during the last three or four weeks in America when I could only get for my travellers' cheques little more than


two dollars—it is not unreasonable to ask that these gentlemen should have this very modest increase in salary, from £3,000 to £3,500. It only concerns two of them.
Therefore, the total amount for which we are asking is only £1,000, which is surely not excessive when I hear privately that a judge on account of the increased cost of living can no longer afford to keep a motor car and has to take the ordinary omnibus to the Royal Palace of Justice in Northern Ireland, and actually may have been travelling with one of the gentlemen whom he will be called upon to condemn in court.
This is a non-controversial Bill, and I would not have raised my voice if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had not made his remarks, but I feel that the slight increase in the salary of these two Northern Ireland judges and the payment of travelling expenses for the Lord Chief Justice, as well as the allowance for the time which he spent in London as Lord of Appeal towards his pension, are all expenses fully justified.

The Attorney-General: I would not like to attempt to rub in the devastating rejoinder made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory), to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I do not think that the latter ought to be allowed to get away with it altogether, so far as I am concerned.
It is a long time ago now, but when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill, I said that we expected to have just the kind of tub-thumping oration from him on the Second Reading that we have had today. We did not have it. I said then, among other things, that I was sure that we would be told about
Triggering off a new inflationary spiral."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December. 1951: Vol. 494, c. 2162.]
We have just had it today. On that occasion one hon. Member—I think that it was the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross)—rather took me to task for having said that we expected that kind of thing. He said that they were more sensible than that on that side of the House that the Attorney-General was being unreasonable about things, and that they did not say stupid things of that kind. That, of course, was at that time. Today, things

are different. I do not think that anyone will take it very seriously when things of that kind are not raised on Second Reading but are raised now, because one must think that there is some reason for their introduction.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I had not intended to intervene, but I think I should point out that the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), were expressed by myself on Second Reading, and the Committee ought to know that at least on this occasion the hon. Member was not the first in the field with the "tub-thumping" to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
If it is tub-thumping to say that increases of £500 a year to any section of the community are psychologically disastrous to those who have to deal with the ordinary workers, then a lot more tub-thumping will have to be done. It is useless for the Chancellor to urge restraint on the part of the working class if responsible members of the Government bring forward a Bill giving an increase not of £1 a week but of £500 a year.
Our opposition arises precisely because of that and not because we do not think this is a good Bill. We think it is introduced at a bad time, and on Second Reading we were suggesting only that its operation should be deferred until such time as the country's economy was in a sounder state.

The Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that at the moment we are only dealing with Clause 4.

Mr. Fernyhough: I recognise that, but as the Attorney-General had transgressed I thought that I might be allowed to let him lead me astray. In view of the difficult situation facing the country and the cuts which are being demanded on all sides, and the fact that we are told that the outstanding claim for equal pay, which we have heard for many years, cannot be met because of these factors, there is a need for the observations I made on Second Reading and the observations which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South has made to-day.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am not proposing to embark on a general discussion of the economic and


financial issues which have been raised by previous speakers, but the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory), persuades me to make a small contribution to the discussion of the Clause. It ought not to be allowed to go forth from this Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), was representing the views of all hon. Members on this side of the Committee when he referred to the position in Northern Ireland.
It is true that from time to time some of us have received most curious reports about the methods of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, and if the extra expenditure which the Clause seeks to authorise results in some improvement which will do away with the abuses which have been brought to our attention from time to time, then I believe that the small additional expenditure involved will be well worth while. I do not intend to ask the Committee to divide against the Clause for the reason that I hope it will make a little contribution towards a very much needed improvement in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: It is unfortunate that we have to deal with this affair here, because it is perhaps more a domestic matter for Northern Ireland. However, the onus is laid upon us. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was dealing with principles and was not allowing himself to be pulled two ways at once.
The effect of the propaganda effort of the Government is that the country is not in a position to accept an inflationary rise in any direction whatsoever. Nevertheless, at the same time as we are being asked to get industry and industrial workers to agree to that point of view we are being asked to agree that judges in Northern Ireland shall have an increase of £500 a year.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory), said that these gentlemen are suffering very keenly because of the effects of devaluation. Does he not agree that those in the lower income groups are also suffering if devaluation is causing suffering? How is it that, when there is talk about suffering, he is apparently so anxious about the

higher income groups and not about those in the lower income groups? I am sure that people in the lower income groups in Northern Ireland could do with an increase in wages very much more than could those whom we are discussing.
We must have some principle about this sort of thing. We cannot argue for £500 increases in the case of these judges and, at the same time, tell the rest of the people that there can be no increases and that all must produce more if this country is to come through. We are taking many steps to curb expenditure among the lower income groups. We are tightening up in respect of old-age pensioners and assistance towards the payment of the fares of those who are unemployed and have to travel to hospital for treatment, and in that instance a determination of need test is proposed. I am not suggesting that we should apply the same rule to the judges, for I do not believe that it ought to be applied to anybody, but its introduction meant a cut in the strength of the Health Service.
However, while that test is operating, it is grossly unfair that people with salaries of £3,500 a year should have that amount without any attention being paid to whether assistance towards fares is needed or not. This is a question of principle, and the Government ought not to be facing two ways at once, being kind to those who are most able to pay their way and, at the same time, tightening up as much as they can in the case of the lower income groups in order that there shall be no inflationary spiral from that end of the wage scale. I may be told that very few judges are concerned.

Professor Savory: This concerns only two judges in Northern Ireland whose salaries are to rise from £3,000 to £3,500.

Mr. Manuel: I appreciate that it concerns only two judges in Northern Ireland and that it means an extra expenditure of only £1,000 a year, but that does not make it right to break a principle and it would not be right even if there was only one judge or only half a judge.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, that this is the wrong time for such an increase. Such an increase should have been given when general wage increases were taking place


and inflation was not such a danger as it is at present.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.20 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has been recently considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which reported that it was pure consolidation and represented the existing law. In those circumstances no Amendment is possible which would have the effect of making any substantial alteration in the law. The question is simply whether the House approves of the principle of consolidation in this particular case. I therefore propose to confine myself to one or two brief points of explanation and comment on matters about which I think the House might like to have a word.
When there are such augean conditions in the law as at present exist in the case of the Revenue law, it is necessary to have two separate stages when cleaning up. The first is to secure a clear view of the law as Parliament intended it, and that, of course, is the process of consolidation. The second stage is the stage of codification, which involves the reform of the law and its re-statement.
This Bill is only concerned with the first stage. I should be merely deceiving the House if I left it under any misapprehension or allowed it to believe that codification is anything but a very long way ahead indeed. After all, a Royal Commission on Taxation is now sitting, and it may very well be that they will make proposals which will require careful consideration. But I think the House will agree, when it appreciates what has been done, that a great task has already been performed,

and that we have taken a real step forward.
In the spirit of today I should like to emphasise the non-partisan character of the whole enterprise which has lead to this Bill. In 1947 the late Government, much to their credit, revived the Statute Law Committee. That is one of those essential non-party bodies which contribute so much to our work in this place. One of the prime movers in the Committee was the former Lord Chancellor, and another prominent member was my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I hope he is here today, because he can speak with so much more knowledge of these things than I can. There are other Members also involved.
In his Budget speech in 1949 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, said:
I should have liked to be able to tackle the Income Tax Acts, but that is too large a task for the moment. I hope, however, we may get ahead towards their consolidation, which must be the first step in their reform and simplification."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2087.]
Immediately afterwards the work was put in hand, and a great many people, both inside and outside this House and both inside and outside Parliament, took part in it. One of them was the present Lord Chancellor. It took the Parliamentary draftsmen two years to produce the first draft, which appeared in a White Paper last year and met with general approval throughout the country. Then when the present Government came into office, they immediately referred the Bill, which was being prepared, to the Joint Committee, which considered it in November and December with the results which we know.
No one with any knowledge of the Revenue law as it now is will be surprised that it took so long to produce the draft. After all, today, and until the Bill becomes law, any unfortunate person who has a tax problem has to consult this volume which I hold in my hand, or, I should say, in my two hands, because it will not go into one. It is a great green book issued by the Stationery Office, and has about 150 pages plus a large number of supplements. Anyone consulting that volume to find out the law will discover that it starts with the Income Tax Act of 1918 and that there are 55 other Acts of Parliament in it.


If he is lucky enough to find out the answer to his problem he will very likely discover that the answer is the wrong one anyway.
The new Bill is not a small one. I have a copy of it here in my hand, and it has something like 508 pages and weighs something over a pound. It has to be borne in mind, however, that we have in a single document the law set out in logical order, and except for certain very limited purposes a person can now hand over those 55 statutes to the waste paper collectors. The only people I think who will really regret the contents of this Consolidation Bill are the tax experts, because now it will be possible for anyone to start trying to find out in this Bill what the Income Tax law is about. Previously I always felt, as one who approached these matters with a comparatively vacant mind, that it was extraordinarily difficult to find out what it was all about.
I think that in those circumstances the House will think it right that credit should be given where it is due. I mentioned the Statute Law Committee, which is the origin of the whole thing and without it it could never have taken place at all. But the work in this case was done by the Joint Committee with the assistance of those who were responsible for advising and guiding them. The Chairman was Lord Radcliffe. The House will agree that we were very fortunate in having his assistance and advice. He did a tremendously hard job of work, and, while it would be impertinent for me to make any reference to his outstanding personal qualification, or the work that he did, I have been particularly asked by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay tribute to Lord Radcliffe and to the inestimable value of the work he did on that Committee.
There were others who worked with him. I know it is unusual in this House for public servants to be mentioned at all; it is even more unusual to have anything pleasant said about them. However, on this occasion I think it proper if I were to mention, not by name but by description, two gentlemen in particular who rendered most signal services to the Joint Committee after having worked very hard on this tremendous job for two years. One of them was the

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Inland Revenue and the other is the Second Parliamentary Counsel. I am quite sure that the Members of the Committee will be able to speak much better than I can of the value of the work they did.
I find myself particularly interested in the second of these two gentlemen, the Second Parliamentary Counsel, because a great many years ago I had the privilege of sharing with him the educational advantages of a certain university establishment. From what I knew of him then I have never been surprised at his subsequent career, because I found him at that time to have what I think might be described as not only the classical but the Biblical qualities of a Parliamentary draftsman—the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, the legal inspiration of Moses and the cunning of the Serpent. There is no doubt that the work which has to be done by the Parliamentary draftsmen is of a most exacting character. They get little credit, and this is one occasion when we can all give them some.
It has been emphasised to me that the Bill should not be regarded as a work of art from the draftsman's point of view. It is not possible to do that kind of thing in this kind of surrounding. The Bill is put forward as a sound, workmanlike job. I hope that the House will accept the Bill as such, and will be prepared to give this consolidation Bill a unanimous Second Reading.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: When the Attorney-General was mentioning those to whom credit should be given, I thought of someone who ought to be included; that is the Counsel to the Speaker, Sir Cecil Carr. His work on the revised statutes is one that should be remembered by this House.

5.32 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I was just about to mention the name of Sir Cecil Carr at the beginning of my speech, and I am very glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has done so. I should like simply to add to what the Attorney-General has said that I very warmly associate myself with him—I hope that all my hon. Friends will join —in the words of tribute which he has paid to the various persons who were instrumental in bringing this Bill into existence.
As the Attorney-General has said, it is a long step from consolidation to codification. Whether it is possible, in the nature of things, to codify Income Tax law with the general finance law is open to question. Only optimists would confidently say that it is possible. I hope that ultimately it may be done; but whether it is done or not and to whatever extent it is found possible to do it, we must all welcome this first step, the consolidation in manageable form of the very many statutes which at present go to make up our Income Tax and Surtax code. It is to be hoped that the consolidation ultimately undertaken will include, for example, that part of our legislation which deals with Purchase Tax, Profits Tax and the other taxes. I hope that that will be taken in hand.
I am very glad that the present Government have been so well schooled and tutored by its predecessor as to follow them in the paths of consolidation. Without in any way wishing to tread upon controversial ground I would say that few Governments undertook so much consolidation work as did the last Government. The present Bill forms in a sense the keystone of a number of other consolidation Measures running into many hundreds of pages and equally bringing other phases of our law into a form in which they give ready access to the ordinary person who wants to see how he stands in relation to the law.
All those who took part in the work of the Statute Law Committee and of the Joint Committee, particularly its chairman, and last, but very far from least, the Parliamentary counsel who were engaged upon the preparation of this work, deserve the warmest thanks not only of both sides of this House but of the country as a whole. Our tax law has been getting progressively but unavoidably into a state in which it is more and more difficult not only to find things but to understand what one finds—and perhaps I might add even to understand where to find them. The step we are now taking brings it into the compass of one single volume.
I do not think it will be right for me to delay the House further, except to say that the problem we have to consider is whether we approve this consolidation Measure. I hope that we shall all do so, and I join the Attorney-General in com-

mending the Bill to the House. I hope it will have a unanimous Second Reading.

5.35 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: As one of those who were chosen by this House to be members of the Joint Committee to consider the Bill, I thank the Attorney-General for the graceful tribute of thanks he has given, not only to the Committee—the Committee only did its duty—but to its Chairman, Lord Radcliffe, who was a completely outstanding figure. He not only took the chair but did a considerable amount of work behind the scenes.
I rise to call the attention of the House of Commons itself to the fact that the Bill sets up a record. It is the longest Bill that has ever been passed—I believe it will be passed—through the House. It has 532 Clauses and 25 Schedules. That is a matter for some note. As the Attorney-General has said, it is a Consolidation Bill. It consolidates the Income Tax Act, 1918, and more than 50 other Income Tax Acts, or at any rate Acts of Parliament which deal with the Income Tax. Broadly speaking, it does not affect other parts of our tax law, although it is bound to impinge on other aspects of tax law where Income Tax is involved.
The Bill purports to describe the existing law, but anybody who has read the proceedings of the Committee will see that even in the Committee it was clear that the law is not always clear even after consolidation. If I may express a hope it is that the Royal Commission on Taxation will not only read the Bill, but will read the confidential note, consisting of 168 pages, which the Committee was given. The Commission are considering the amending of Income Tax law and bringing it up to date, as well as making clear doubts which still exist on the Income Tax law as it stands.
For instance, in some decided cases there has never been a clear decision. The taxpayer sometimes loses and sometimes the Revenue loses. In other cases, there never has been a decided case to clear up a point. It would be an advantage to the taxpayer and to the Revenue in future if the Royal Commission made it quite clear in their Report on which side of the fence they were going to come down.
I commend the Bill to the House as a monumental Measure by more than 100


devoted civil servants, a few of whom have already been mentioned. The Bill has had wide publicity given to it in technical circles and it has been accepted by all the technical people. It deserves the unanimous Second Reading which I believe it will get.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: This Bill will be welcome not only to members of the legal profession and to members of the accountancy profession and to Her Majesty's judges, but perhaps even more welcome to the large number of civil servants in the Inland Revenue Department whose duty it is to administer the law and who have for so long found difficulty in interpreting the law fairly to the citizen because of the large accumulation of Income Tax law since the last consolidation Measure.
It is 34 years since we last had a consolidating Bill on Income Tax law, and though this new Bill is necessarily long it will be infintely more convenient for reference for all who have to go to it. All who have read the first Report by the Joint Committee of both Houses will have been struck by the fastidious care with which the Committee were guided by the principles of consolidation Measures and resisted, however strong the temptation—and I am sure it must have been—to alter the law, however slightly, to make it more intelligible or more equitable. But, as one noble and learned member of the Committee said, "Our job is not to resolve difficulties but to consolidate doubts."
There is no doubt that the new Bill consolidates quite a lot of doubts, though I am happy to say that one which would have weighed heavily on my own mind the Committee removed. I discovered that long ago when assessors of taxes were part-time officials, there was some discipline imposed upon them in the shape of a forfeiture of £10 if they neglected to carry out certain duties in connection with assessments under Schedule A.
Now, under the Finance Act, 1946, that kind of assessor was abolished and his duties under the Act were transferred to full-time inspectors of taxes and collectors of taxes employed by the Board of Inland Revenue. I had no idea that they were still exposed to this forfeiture of £10 if they neglected to carry out certain of

their duties which rested previously upon assessors. I am grateful to the Joint Committee for having taken their courage in both hands and for having decided that they could not ask an entirely different kind of assessor to forfeit £10 should he neglect the duties which were imposed previously on an entirely different kind of officer.
I see, however, that the Committee resisted another temptation, that of straightening out the law with regard to allowances to taxpayers who have housekeepers. There is something for the committee on codification or for the Royal Commission to do because, strangely enough, the law says that if a widower has a relative keeping house for him she must be resident. Yet the law does not say quite so categorically that if the same taxpayer employs a housekeeper she must be resident with him. The Joint Committee have observed the dictum of the noble and learned member of the Committee who said, "Our job is not to resolve difficulties, but to consolidate doubts," and that is one of the doubts which has been consolidated.
I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two more, but it is interesting to observe, in passing, that when this consolidation Bill becomes law, many notable and familiar landmarks in Income Tax law will have shifted their position. Take as an example Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, that comfort to men successful in business or at the Bar who embark on a much less successful venture on the land, who probably find that Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, provides a hidden subsidy for farming loss which they incur with impunity in order to support perhaps a higher standard of life than is given to the rest of the community.
The dinner-jacket farmer will pray for the retention of Section 34 somewhere else in this consolidating Measure, and I will tell him straight away that he will now find it in Clause 341. I think there is something very touching indeed in maintaining in the new Clause the figures "3" and "4" which have been so familiar to those who have found their way about the Income Tax Act in the past.
We find rather by contrast that Rule 9 of Schedule E will become Rule 7 of the Ninth Schedule. There we see the harsher doctrine applicable to those


of us who hold offices of profit and who incur expenditure in the performance of our duties. There the law says that against such emoluments or profits only such expenses as are wholly, exclusively, and necessarily incurred in the performance of the office shall be admissible as allowance against Income Tax liability. There we have, as it were, the two poles of the treatment of taxpayers: those under Section 34, now 341, and those under Rule 9 of Schedule E which is now Rule 7 of the Ninth Schedule.
There was in the Finance Act of 1951 a menacing Section in the eyes of many, Section 27, with regard to the disclosure of bank interest of over £15 a year. Well, that has riot been moved very far in the consolidation Measure, for it goes only two Clauses further on.
I end with a suggestion to the Attorney-General if I may, which perhaps he will carry to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is that when the consolidation Measure is published, it would be of great help to all who may have to consult it if there were a Schedule of the old Sections and the new in order to make it easier to find one's way about the new Bill. There is a need for some guide to consolidation. I see that certain publishers are already offering that kind of help to their clients and are promising that it will be available very quickly after the Bill becomes law. I hope, however, that Her Majesty's Stationery Office, in conjunction with the Inland Revenue, will not be slow to provide the fullest possible help to all consultants of the consolidation Measure who will wish to discover anew some of the old mysteries and probably some of the fresh mysteries of Income Tax law.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Edward Keeling: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), referred to the desirability of a table of comparison showing how the old enactments re-enacted by the Bill are to be found in it. There is already such a document, which I think the hon. Member can get. It is numbered 55–1.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), said that this is the longest Bill that has ever been presented to Parliament. As almost necessarily follows, it is also the heaviest. The 625 copies which were distributed to hon. Members of this House

weighed nearly half a ton. I only mention that because the Statute Law Committee, of which, as my hon. and learned Friend said, I am a member, has embarked on an intensive campaign of consolidation, which I think the House will agree with me is a good thing. It occurs to me to suggest that it is really a waste of paper to circulate half a ton of it, used for a single consolidation Bill, to all the Members, when probably very few Members look at it. It might suffice to circulate a slip saying that the Bill is obtainable at the Vote Office on application.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has very much more experience in these things than I have, but is he quite sure that there is not a rule which makes it necessary to circulate the Bill to all Members?

Mr. Keeling: I have inquired about that and am told that there is no such rule. If there were such a rule, it would obviously apply in another place, but, in fact, in another place there is no such circulation.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am always most reluctant to intervene in one of these mutual admiration societies, which are so moving when we hear them and which move me emotionally also. We have heard the lawyers congratulating the lawyers on both sides with a felicity and grace, and, indeed, with an enthusiasm that on the whole I find very charming. We have heard Members of the Committee making passionate tributes to the Members of the Committee.
We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), to whom I always listen with pleasure, speaking with special enthusiasm and passing special tributes to this long, voluminous, turgid and incomprehensible Measure, although I had begun to think that Income Tax had been abolished and I cast a rough glance at the appropriate Clause to find if that had been done. Of course, there is a reason for all this; that under the rules of the House we cannot talk about the Bill, and we must talk about something. That places us in a little difficulty, but there are some questions of procedure referring to the Bill which are important and to which the attention of hon. Members should be called.
The Attorney-General exhausted his list of Biblical characters in his opening remarks. I should have thought that the first one he would have called to mind in reference to the Bill would have been Lot. It is right and material to say that I must almost divide the House on the question of the weight of the Bill. I have checked it very carefully. It weighs 1 lb. 7 oz. in the Vote Office here, and 2 lb. 7 oz. on my wife's kitchen scales, which is, perhaps, accounted for by the fact that the recent diminution of rations has been noticed by us only in the process of checking and not in digesting.
If we enlarge this into a mild debate, it is perhaps right to point out that in 1951, under the aegis of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), when the Bill was printed on good quality paper, was bound and contained a notice as to procedure and interpretation, it was priced at 10s., whereas under the present Government, without any binding and note, it has gone up to 13s., which is rather a tragic commentary on the way things are drifting generally.
This is an exceedingly serious matter and one to which we ought to be able to give some serious attention. The Bill was printed in March, 1951. I missed it at the time because it was printed with one of the most charming notes I have ever seen appended to an Act of Parliament. There was a specific invitation by my right hon. Friend for us to write and make any suggestions as to what to do with the Income Tax Acts, and I am bound to say—[Laughter.] Yes. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you write?"] I missed it at the time. It said:
Any suggestions for the correction or improvement of the draft should be sent to the Secretary, Board of Inland Revenue …
I am bound to say, having had my own personal troubles over this matter in the last few months, that had my attention been called to that I would have made suggestions as to the disposal of the matter, which, no doubt, would be out of order if delineated with any regularity on the Second Reading of the Bill.
Unfortunately, another thing has happened—and here I want to make a serious point. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not here to hear it. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] In

that case, I feel reinforced at once, and I apologise that the fiery totems will be passed around the clans tonight after I have had to call attention to a very grave matter which has occurred in connection with Clause 114 of the Bill. In Clause 114 as originally drafted, one finds these important words:
Any mortgagee or creditor in any heritable bond or wadset in possession of the lands, tenements, hereditaments or heritages mortgaged or secured …
By referring to the notes of the considerations of the Committee, it will be found that the Committee passed Clause 114 without Amendment—nothing happened to it at all; but somewhere or other someone has decided to Anglicise it. There are times on Scots Question days when I feel that there may be an argument for some limitation on the exclusive rights of North Britain, but now we get Clause 114 in this form:
Any mortgagee or creditor in any heritable security in possession of the lands…
In the first place, that is a great extension of "wadset ". The Attorney-General will know at once—he will be waiting to burst in and correct me on this—that a wadset is a peculiar, limited form of mortgage. It has a very respectable antiquity, and can be found in Acts of the 15th and 16th Century and indeed in Scott's Waverley Novels. If any more formal authority is wanted for the point I am making, it will be found in Burns' election poems:
Here's a little wadset,
Buittle's scrap o' truth,
Pawn'd in a gin-shop
Quenching holy drouth.
I hope I have got that point quite clearly understood. It seems to me a regrettable thing that, somewhere or other in the background, someone should be anglicising the very brilliant and native language of the Scots, without anyone knowing when it happened and without the attention of the Committee being called to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am not quite sure what this has to do with the consolidation of the Acts.

Mr. Hale: I am very glad to explain, although I may have to develop the point. We are considering two things under the rules: First, whether we consider at all, and second, whether it is consolidation. I am asking for an explanation of the process that has gone into this matter. If


there is any doubt, I will willingly quote a number of other examples. There are a great number of other Clauses which, according to the minutes and evidence of the Committee, appear to have been passed unamended, but which, when we get them here, have had considerable alterations made.
If I may refer the attention of the Attorney-General to what may appear to him to be a more substantial point, he will find that in Clause 210 there is an Amendment dealing with National Insurance pensions payable to married women who are insured in their own right. That comes from Section 27 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, and it was not in the original draft. So far as I can trace from the minutes, it was never considered by the Committee. It is a quite important Amendment.
I do not, however, want to be unfair. It may very well be that it does not alter the existing law; it is done in such a way that it is very arguable whether it has any effect. Anyone who wants to know what has happened to Section 27 of the 1946 Act will find that half of it is left in Section 27 and half of it is in Clause 210. This sort of thing creates difficulties.

The Attorney-General: I am most reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I have with me the Report of the Joint Committee, being a Report on the Income Tax Bill [H.L.]—
Ordered to report that:—
The Committee have considered the above Bill and have heard evidence thereon. They have made certain amendments which seem to them necessary to the improvement of the form of the Bill and they are of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, is pure consolidation and represents the existing law.
In those circumstances, is it in order for the House now to discuss whether—

Mr. Hale: Certainly.

The Attorney-General: —a particular Clause is consolidation or not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not in order to do that on Second Reading. The only question before the House on Second Reading is the consolidation question.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry about this because I had just concluded my remarks and was about to resume my seat, but we have another purported consolidation

Measure without such a certificate. Part of its title is to consolidate the law relating to customs and excise, and therefore it is a purporting consolidation Measure.
We must have a rule, and Erskine May is perfectly clear. The question before the House is whether to give the Bill a Second Reading or not. The matter we are to consider is whether it ought to be given a Second Reading, and one of the matters to be taken into account is whether the results of the work of the Committee have been in our view successful and satisfactory or not, and it is precisely to that point that I am directing my attention. I can imagine no more serious point being made than that there are certain matters, especially the words inserted in one section that do not appear in any section of the Acts being consolidated. The Attorney-General will find that special commissioners are mentioned in one section, but they do not appear in any of the Acts consolidated. Now that comparative calm has been restored and no one is challenging me, I will come to the final point I wish to make, which I think is important.
The principle of consolidation is a very important one, but it is important only as a preliminary to codification. We are entitled to some explanation. We know the difficulties and know that it is a difficult job, but this Measure only seeks to consolidate Acts from 1918. It is a little remarkable that in the next Bill we are to consider tonight we shall be talking about the Finance Act of 1895 and the Tobacco Act of 1863. That consolidation has been a mighty job which no one will underestimate. There is always a risk about consolidation without codification, a perfectly genuine risk. The course followed on the Companies Act was a very good one; one first consolidated the old Measures and said, "This is the law," and then went through that from the point of view of consolidation and considered what could be done to put it right.
Today the Attorney-General said that all we have to do is to refer to that green book and there we will find the law, which of course is true. But one has to have recourse to a whole library of books and many people will be put to very great cost to find out what it means. There are many Clauses which are so incomprehensible that two experts would give completely conflicting opinions and


some Clauses which no human being can reasonably read without a wet towel round his head and without taking a serious risk of mental results following any prolonged attention to the document.
What are we to do about it? It may be that in the course of some months there will be a consolidation of the law relating to customs and excise. We all hope that this Bill will have a Second Reading and will go through and become part of the law. It is a great advantage and a step forward to have this consolidation, but the whole task of codifying the law is a complex one. One of the difficulties on this very point of codification is the number of statutes to be consulted. But, even if it is a long list, it should not involve a tremendous amount of research into our ancient laws, the sort of thing which, generally speaking, is needed for an effective consolidation Act.
One of the very real difficulties that occurred even here was the attempt to take in the Finance Act of 1951 in the course of the proceedings. We produced the original draft in 1951 and then we had the Finance Act which made some amendments to the Income Tax Law, some exceedingly important consequential amendments in relation to allowances and so on. That, of course, adds to the task and it means that every year that goes by there is a considerably added difficulty to the task of codification. The sooner it is embarked upon the better—the better for the community at large. I press the Attorney-General, before we leave this Measure, to tell us what are the functions of Her Majesty's Government in the matter. I note that he shakes his head from east to west. Does that mean, "No, I cannot," or does it mean. "No, I shall not"?

The Attorney-General: I did say when I addressed the House before that I would be misleading the House if I gave any reasons for supposing that codification would be in the near future. I gave the reason that in the first place the Royal Commission on Taxation is now sitting and discussing the matter and I thought that no one could suggest that we could start setting out a new Income Tax law until that has been done. I thought I made it quite plain that I can give no possible undertaking.

Mr. Hale: I shall not for a moment dispute the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that and what he said was quite plain, but it did not add much to our fund of knowledge. After all, there was always a committee of some sort discussing some aspect of taxation and the terms of reference of the Royal Commission are fairly limited and they will not be called upon to cover the whole range of inquiries. All we are asking the Attorney-General is when the job is to be started? Everyone knows that it will be a long job, but it is important that we should know something about it. He has paid a very justifiable and glowing tribute to the work of his predecessors in office in this connection. I know that the previous Lord Chancellor played a very large part in this, and it was a matter very much after his own heart that he should take the preliminary steps to consolidation followed by codification.
I think we should know whether this is to be subject to cuts or whether it is to go on and whether the Committee is to be enlarged, to remain as it is, or to be reduced. There is still that east-west shaking of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's head which I find difficult and deceiving. It is important that he should tell us this, and I think the House is entitled to an answer. Is the work to be carried on without remission by the full staff appointed; is there to be sufficient money made available for this exceedingly important work in connection with our Statute Law to proceed, or is it to be cut? Very naturally we view with some foreboding almost any statement about any sort of social activity. This is really a rather serious matter, and if the Attorney-General wants to get up and say that he does not know—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On this Bill we cannot survey all the other social activities.

Mr. Hale: On that I must disagree with your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and venture to put my reasons. The Attorney-General said that consolidation is normally the prelude to codification, and that is the point I am making. That is precisely the matter the House is considering; are we consolidating with a view to codification, or not? The


Attorney-General, in fact, to an extent said "Yes." It is purely a "Kathleen Mavoureen" procedure at the moment:
It may be for years,
Or it may be forever.
It is not clear whether it will be before the Committee or not. We have not relaxed our determination to tackle the problem by some Measure. How many people are grappling with the problem at the moment we cannot say, and whether more people or fewer people will be grappling with it we cannot say at the moment. At that stage I come in and say that the House really thinks it discourteous if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give a little more information on this point and take the opportunity of telling all those who believe in an understandable Statute Law. I think that if he wishes to say it is a matter for the Treasury to decide we shall hear that with sympathy and in silence, but on a matter of this kind he ought not to sit back quietly sulking like an Achilles in his tent but give a little information to the House to enable us to agree to give a Second Reading to the Bill, as think most of my colleagues would without further controversy.

6.10 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Out of courtesy, I should like to say that I leave it in the hands of the House to decide whether I have been discourteous or not. I have given the best answer on the matter that I can. That is all I have to say.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Butcher.]

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS AND EXCISE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.11 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Though the main purpose of the Bill is to consolidate the law, I must in frankness tell the House that it is not in the same technical sense as was the last Measure a consolidation Bill, because in consolidating the law it also effects a certain number of Amendments. Therefore, it has not received the certificate that it is a consolidation Measure which was given by the appropriate Committee to the Bill which the House has just ceased to discuss.
None the less the main intention and effect of this Measure is to bring into the scope of a single statute the whole of the law relating to the collection of the revenues both of Customs and Excise. That law is at present to be found in no fewer than 200 Acts of Parliament passed by this House from time to time during the last 150 years. I think the oldest of them mentioned in the Schedules is the Sale of Beer Act, 1795, though to reassure the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), the Vinegar Act, 1844, also features in the Schedules.
Not only does the wide dispersal of the law in such a wide variety of Measures of different date make it difficult to discover what is, precisely, the law on a great many of the issues which arise, but equally much of that law itself is archaic in form and either obsolete or obsolescent in substance. It is partly because we are taking this opportunity to get rid of some of this legislative dead wood that the Bill is not, for the purposes of the Rules of Procedure of this House, a consolidation Measure.
Another reason it has been impossible to draft it strictly as a consolidation Measure is that up to 1909 Customs and Excise were administered by separate Departments with their own separate legislative codes. I think the House will agree that it is obviously sensible now that both of these departments of revenue are dealt with by the same Department of State to try to bring the law affecting both of them into the same form. That has inevitably involved amending one branch


of the law to bring it into line with another.
It will give some idea to the House of the relative clarification and simplification which this Bill, if passed into law, will introduce into our law, if I mention that the Schedules provide for the complete repeal of no fewer than 47 Acts of Parliament and for the repeal, in addition, of some 540 Sections enacted in other Acts of Parliament. I would not say the result has been to produce a body of legislation which is as compact as the layman would wish. It is perfectly true that, compared with the last Measure with which the House was dealing, it is quite a small Bill; but it does include 321 Clauses and 12 Schedules.
But I submit that it does a great deal to clear up the legislative jumble which the present law amounts to; and I think it will be agreed by us all that it is an unwholesome thing for any community to have so important a part of its law in a state of confusion. It is perhaps particularly unfortunate in a commercial community such as ours that both traders and Departments of Government should have to seek to find their way through such a complicated mass of legislation.
It is our belief that in this way we shall be able to bring clarity to the whole legal framework of the complicated matters which are the spheres of Customs and Excise, and in addition to provide the legal framework for more recent matters which are now within the duties of Customs and Excise, such as the machinery of the Purchase Tax. But I should make it clear that this Bill simply provides the legislative framework. It does not attempt in any way to deal with such obviously controversial matters as rates of tax. It simply provides the instrument which Parliament, on other Measures, can use as it wishes for the imposition of taxation.
Those who have been responsible for the prolonged process of bringing this Measure into its present form have gone out of their way to seek to eliminate anything which might in the ordinary party sense be regarded as of a controversial nature. For example, at one stage of the discussions of this Bill it incorporated a proposal to bring the monetary penalties imposed under the Customs and Excise law more into line with the present value

of money by increasing the maximum penalties which courts could impose. There is probably on merit a certain amount to be said for such a proposal, but it was felt, and I believe rightly, that such a proposal, be it sound or unsound, was not appropriate to a Measure of this sort.
Therefore, we have rejected that proposal and have put back into this Measure the same penalties in substance as were found in the earlier legislation. The exceptions have been in favour of the taxpayer. For example, we have eliminated a provision of one of the earlier Acts by which indefinite imprisonment could be imposed.
The need for this Bill, or something of this sort, has been apparent for a great number of years. One can go back as far as 1876 and still find that attempts were being made to consolidate the law on this subject. Draft consolidation Measures were actually prepared in 1898, 1911, 1923 and in 1938, and the unfortunate fact that none of them got any further does, I suppose, throw some measure of blame upon Governments of every political colour.
The present Bill goes back, in its immediate origins, to 1948, when on the instructions of Sir Stafford Cripps, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whose outstanding legal qualities perhaps permitted him better than any other man to appreciate the harm being done by the existing state of the law, Customs and Excise, Parliamentary counsel and others started preparations for this Measure.
Last year the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, appointed a very distinguished Committee, representative of many aspects of both political and economic life, to consider the draft of the Bill as it then stood. This Committee was presided over by the Lord Kennet. Its deputy chairman was Lord Nathan of Churt, and it included among its membership one right hon. Member and one hon. Member of this House—my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Works and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). It also included a number of representatives of different aspects of our economic life. As hon. Members will be aware, that Committee has reported. Its Report


has been laid as a White Paper, Cmd. 8453, together with the notes on the Clauses of the Bill. The substance of the Committee's Report is in paragraph 18, which says:
We are unanimously of opinion that the draft Bill as revised by us achieves this aim and that, if enacted, it will meet a long felt need and be of great benefit both to the trades and industries concerned and to the administration of the Customs and Excise.
Perhaps I should take the opportunity of mentioning that occasion has been taken to tidy up regulation-making power in connection with Customs and Excise matters. It is provided in Clause 306 that the Regulations made in these matters shall be made by Statutory Instrument and shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament. The modern Statutory Instrument procedure has been applied to this wide variety of regulation-making powers. It has the effect of bringing under Parliamentary control for the first time certain types of Regulation which previously were completely free of direct Parliamentary control.
In view of the complex nature of this Bill, if the House is good enough to give it a Second Reading, it is proposed, as appears from the Motion which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to refer it to a Joint Committee of Members of this House and of another place. That is a practice which had previously been followed on occasion in the case of Measures of this sort which, while not strictly consolidation, do a good deal of consolidating.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the origin of that procedure? I have been trying to find out and I have been unable to find anyone who knows.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the origin is. I will certainly make inquiries, as the hon. Member has been good enough to put the question. The procedure has been followed from time to time. I will endeavour to let the hon. Gentleman know. It was followed in the case of the Local Government Act, 1933, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, and it has been followed in this kind of Bill before.
I hope that I shall not incur the criticisms of hon. Members on either side of

the House for distributing encomia too widely if I say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and of the whole House, that we owe a great debt of gratitude not only to the public officials of the Customs and Excise and to Parliamentary counsel who took part in the earlier stages of the Bill to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South, who gave it a further push onwards; to Sir Stafford Cripps who initiated the earlier stages of this Bill, but also the Members of the Kennet Committee, most of them extremely busy men, who gave up a great deal of their time to a most detailed analysis of its provisions.
I think that I should be expressing the opinion of the House if I said that we greatly appreciate the unselfish and hard public service which all the people concerned gave in this matter and which has produced this Bill which, if enacted into our law, will produce a clarification and a simplification of a branch of the law which is of day-to-day importance to a trading community such as ours.

6.25 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: At the outset and at the risk of incurring, I will not say the displeasure, but at any rate the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I should like to associate myself with what was said by the Financial Secretary by way of tribute to those responsible for this Bill. It is a Bill which implements the recommendations of the Committee set up by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1951. As has been pointed out, it supersedes in whole or in part a great many Acts of Parliament scattered up and down our Statute Book which at present contain our legalisation about Customs and Excise. As such, I think that everybody must welcome the Bill as a Bill.
That having been said, one must recognise nevertheless that the position is a somewhat unusual one in the sense that this is not a consolidation Measure. If it were a consolidation Measure it would be useful, but I agree with the Financial Secretary that it would be nothing like as useful as it is, being a consolidation Measure and something more. It consolidates this great mass of unwieldy legislation and at the same time makes a number of changes, many of which are not small unimportant changes but changes of substance, in the existing law relating to Customs and Excise.
I agree with the Financial Secretary that it is necessary, desirable and useful that changes should be made. Our existing law on this subject, beginning as it does with the year 1795, is in many respects archaic, outmoded and almost impossible to understand. We have before us a Bill embodying the research and the work of many persons who co-operated in producing a Measure which is not only one of consolidation but one which also changes existing law.
Ordinarily, we should have the protection of a detailed examination of a Bill which changes the law by a Standing Committee or a Committee of this House. In point of fact, Parliament passed in 1949 the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act which enables small Amendments—Amendments of minor importance—to be combined with a pure consolidation Act where that seems appropriate. In those circumstances, a formal Committee stage was equally dispensed with.
What we have to deal with now is a consolidation Measure plus a Measure making substantial changes in the law. We have before us the proposal of the Government that we should not have the ordinary Committee stage. We on this side of the House must make up our minds about the attitude we are to adopt to that proposal. Speaking for myself—and this is the advice that I give to my hon. Friends—I would say that although it is dangerous to accept, as it were, almost on trust—perhaps that is rather over-stating it—a Measure which changes the law, I recommend my hon. Friends to take the view that the balance of convenience and of public advantage to be derived from a Bill of this sort is so great that we ought to be ready to accept, in the special circumstances of the present Bill, the Government's proposal to dispense with the ordinary Standing Committee stage.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Subject to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I understand the position it is that if the House accepts the proposal that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee, the next step is for it to return to this House for the Committee stage in the ordinary sense of the term. I understand that that is the procedure which is followed.

Sir F. Soskice: I was simply guiding myself by what appears on the Order Paper. If the Financial Secretary now says that both stages are to be gone through, the objections which I have just raised will fall. I understand that the hon. Gentleman now says that the Measure is to be examined by a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and that, thereafter, the Bill is again to be subjected to detailed examination in the ordinary course, either by a Standing Committee or by a Committee of this House. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is telling us?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Subject, of course, to your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for it is for you to state what is the procedure of this House, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said will be the procedure, as I understand the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has stated the procedure quite correctly.

Sir F. Soskice: After what we have just heard, the anxieties about procedure which I have been expressing are now removed. We expected that this Bill, which makes substantial changes in the law, would go to a Joint Committee and be examined solely by them, as far as detailed examination goes. If, however, their examination is to be followed up by another detailed examination, Clause by Clause, in the ordinary way—if that is what the Government propose to do—I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will be very greatly reassured, and will be relieved of the anxieties which they had before.
Speaking for myself, it is obviously impossible in a Second Reading speech to review the many details of a Measure of the scope of the one we are now considering. I had intended, and I would desire, to mention one or two points, and I know that a number of my hon. Friends have considered this Measure very carefully and will have other points which they will desire to bring forward for consideration at this early stage in the history of this Bill, if they are fortunate enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to catch your eye.
The two points which I have in mind are these. I had already given notice to the Law Officers with regard to one of


them, and the learned Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have been good enough to consider the point I put forward. Although I gather that they are not able to assent to the view that I was advancing, nevertheless I would be grateful if they would give further consideration to the point, which I think is one of some importance.
The Bill provides that the only authority which is to be able to initiate proceedings is to be the Commissioners. I have always taken the view that, although exceptions are sometimes made in our legislative code, it is not desirable that some body should be entrusted with the sole duty of deciding whether criminal proceedings are to be taken or not, and that the Attorney-General, who, after all, has the overall responsibility for the conduct of criminal proceedings in this country, should be excluded from any responsibility so far as the initiation of criminal proceedings is concerned.
I hope the Government will give further consideration to the present form of Clause 281, because the point arises in connection with it. The Clause provides that no proceedings are to be brought except upon the order of the Commissioners, and it seems to me that this is a Clause which is misconceived in purpose and in policy.
I know that, in our legislative code, we do often entrust Ministers and particular authorities with the duty of instituting proceedings in particular cases, but it is certainly not the case that, as a matter of practice, the Attorney-General is excluded from any responsibility and any discretion in directing the initiation of proceedings in cases in which he thinks it is proper to do so.
That is wholly wrong, and I hope the Government will agree that Clause 281 should be remodelled so that the Bill, so far as criminal proceedings are concerned —I do not refer to other proceedings, and the Clause apparently covers criminal proceedings—the Attorney-General should, equally at least with the Commissioners, have the right, if he thinks it is appropriate in a particular case in the public interest, to direct in the ordinary way that criminal proceedings should be instituted.
It seems to me to be wholly wrong that if the Attorney-General, representing the public interest, thinks in a particular case

that proceedings are necessary in the criminal courts, nevertheless, he should not be able to take the steps which he thinks appropriate, and that it should be solely for the Commissioners to say whether or not criminal proceedings should be started. I think this is a matter of fundamental importance, so far as general policy in the administration of our criminal law is concerned, and I commend this point to the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for further consideration by them.
The other Clause to which I should like to call attention is Clause 66. First, however, I should have said, in regard to Clause 281, that I quite accept that the existing law is stated in the form of Clause 281 as it stands at the moment. When one looks at Clause 66, however, one finds that it departs from the existing law, because Clause 66 imposes an obligation. I quote:
(1) Any person entering or leaving the United Kingdom shall answer such questions as the proper officer shall put to him with respect to his baggage and any article contained therein or carried with him.
As I understand it, the existing law does not require a person entering the country to answer any questions which the officer concerned may think proper. Clause 66 provides that any person who refuses to answer any such questions is liable to a penalty of £100. I should have thought that that was certainly going farther than the existing law, and that it was very questionable whether the public interest does require that this very drastic power should now be placed in the hands of the appropriate officer.
How far is it to go? Suppose one is carrying a case, a parcel or portmanteau, and that a number of personal and confidential letters are carried in it. Is one to be subjected to the obligation of answering any questions relating to purely private and personal letters which the officer may put, under a penalty of £100 if one refuses to answer the questions?
The existing law, as I understand it, applies no such obligation on anybody. In Section 85 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, one is certainly liable to a penalty if one denies that one is carrying foreign goods when one is, in fact, doing so. If one takes it upon one's self to make an untrue statement, the making of an untrue statement is one thing, and


refusing to answer the questions about some entirely personal correspondence, to use the example I have already quoted, is a different thing altogether.
If I have misconceived the legal situation, I hope the Attorney-General will correct me, but, if I have correctly described it, then I commend the Clause to the further consideration of the Government in order to see whether it is necessary, in the interests of the public generally and of the proper administration of this part of our legislation, that so very stringent a power should be placed in the hands of the officers in question.
That brings me almost to the close of the observations which I wanted to make in reply to the Second Reading speech of the Minister. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will desire to call attention to other aspects of the Bill, and I know that some of them will argue points in which they are interested. So far as I am concerned, I would recommend to my hon. Friends—and I very much hope they will agree with me—that we should certainly give this Measure a Second Reading. It is really a great achievement to have brought within one Bill the amendment of the whole range of a Customs and Excise law.
If we give a Second Reading to this Bill today, having already given a Second Reading to the Income Tax Bill, I think we shall take a great step forward in making this particularly complex branch of our law very greatly improved, and that we will have done much to tidy up our Statute Book and enable the ordinary citizen to understand how he figures in the eyes of the law.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. G. P. Stevens: While listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury I recalled a phrase I read in a book—I think it was one of Sapper's "Bulldog Drummond" series—to the effect that
One point of detail is nothing. Two points are a coincidence. Three points are a moral certainty.
My hon. Friend recalled the previous occasions when draft Bills had been prepared with a view to the consolidation of the law of Customs and Excise. There was one in 1898, and within a month or

two the Boer War broke out. There was another in 1911, and within a little more than a year or so World War I had come about. The draft Bill went back on the shelves and was brought out again in 1938. Within a few short months World War II had broken out.
Here we have a draft Bill once again for the consolidation of the law relating to Customs and Excise. But there is this difference in principle between the three or four previous attempts made to consolidate this law and the current endeavour which is that this Bill has reached the Floor of this House. For that reason, if for no other, I hope this House will give it a Second Reading as quickly as possible.
It is true that there are points of detail in a Bill which is 230 pages long upon which we may have our disagreements, but I believe those points of detail should properly be raised on the Committee stage of the Bill and not on its Second Reading. I think it is perfectly true to say that with four exceptions, apart from the one to which the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) referred, no new offences or penalties are provided in this Bill.
Clause 10 provides additional penalties for the obstruction of Customs officers in the exercise of their duty. Clause 71 provides for special penalties, or rather different penalties, with regard to methods used for signalling to smugglers. I cannot imagine that when the draft Bill was prepared in 1876 radio and radar aids were contemplated. Clause 174 provides penalties for offering smuggled goods for sale. I am quite sure none of us as we walk down Oxford Street would have any objection at all to subsidising the gentleman who offers us nylon stockings against his contingent liabilities in that respect. In another part of the Bill provision is made for dealing with the improper rectifying by distillers of goods upon which Duty has been paid.
Apart from these five possible exceptions I think the Bill provides for no new penalties. I have not the least doubt that the trading interests concerned will feel quite strongly that an amending Bill, which may well vary the penalties and the powers of the Customs and Excise officers, will be necessary in due course.


But those are matters quite beyond the scope of this present consolidation Bill which I believe will simplify the work of the Customs and Excise officers and will be appreciated by them very much indeed. It will help them, and as such I commend it to the House. For the reasons I have stated I hope this Measure will get its Second Reading tonight without undue delay.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I think the House would be doing an injustice to the country if it failed to deal with this matter on a rather wider basis than it has been dealt with heretofore. This, after all, is a Bill to consolidate and amend the law, and it would be quite wrong if the House devoted itself entirely to consolidation and did nothing about amending it, and if at any rate it did not consider where the law should be rather further amended.
I am sorry, in a way, that the Financial Secretary, who, as we all remember in the old days, was always a champion of any question of personal liberty, did not say one word about some of the offences consolidated in this Bill, but which, of course, date from many past epochs of Conservative Governments. This Bill provides in one body an opportunity of putting right a number of injustices which his party has perpetrated for a number of decades.
However, I do not want to deal in the main with that issue. I understand that some of my hon. Friends are to deal in more detail with the question of whether the Bill might be amended to deal with the liberty of the subject. But it is only fair to say to the House that the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Works as they say in the Report was to produce some form of consolidation which would at any rate command general approval and not to produce a Measure which necessarily put injustices right. They left it to the House to do that and we should be wrong if we did not attempt so to do.
But there is a far more important issue in this Bill than even the issue of personal justice. How we collect our taxes depends very often on how much we get in, and, particularly, how we collect Excise taxes may well depend on what we have to buy with dollars and with

currency of another sort. When I come to deal with the question of the methods by which we collect the Tobacco Duty I think hon. Members will see that in this country we are adopting a method which no other country adopts and which, in my respectful submission, is one which leads us almost inevitably to have to buy American tobacco.
Everyone knows the apochryphal headline which was once said to have appeared in "The Times"—
Fog in the Channel. The Continent Isolated.
But when we find ourselves in a position where we are enforcing a system of taxation which is quite different from that employed by any other country I think the House might at least pause for a moment to consider whether we are right and all the rest are wrong, or whether there is a possibility that there is some mistake in our system.
In order that I may come almost immediately to the points with which I wish to deal in greater detail I will not deal with the civil liberty aspect of it—a matter which I am sure is very dear to the heart of the Financial Secretary—except to give one example of one Clause where the law has been altered. Clause 71 deals with the question of signalling. Of course, when these Acts originally started the method by which people signalled was by means of a flag or a light, and, therefore, the law restricted signalling to certain periods. Quite rightly, the Committee suggested that the law relating to this signalling to smuggling vessels should be extended throughout the whole of the 24 hours.
But when one looks at the wording of the Bill one sees that it is fantastically wide. Clause 71 says:
Any person who by any means makes any signal or transmits any message from any part of the United Kingdom or from any ship or aircraft for the information of a person in any ship or aircraft or across the boundary who is or may be"—
I bring these words particularly to the attention of the Solicitor-General—
engaged in smuggling …
But if one is running a signalling station such as, I understand, the Decca Company run for giving ships their bearings, how can one know that the signals may not be picked up and reflected from some apparatus contained in a ship which may


be engaged in smuggling? Nevertheless, any person who so sets up an apparatus is, according to this wording, engaged in some form of crime. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he ought to consider whether in this case, and, indeed, in a great many other cases under this Bill, the word "knowingly" should be added so as to make certain that the person sending the signal does so with the idea of helping somebody engaged in smuggling or who may be doing so.
If I do not deal any further with this particular point it is only that I do not want to delay the House too long, and, therefore, I will also leave the other aspect of the Bill—the rather unfortunate aspect—the one or two small points which passed the eagle eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, the one or two slips in drafting. We have, for example, a provision by which if a person sells any intoxicating liquor he must obtain a licence and pay 10s. for it. But if one obtains a licence only for wine or cider one can buy the licence for 5s. Unless for the purposes of this Act wine and cider are not to be considered intoxicating liquor, obviously "any" is a misprint for the word "all"; and if we are to consolidate the law let us, at any rate, in consolidating it get it right.
I want to concentrate on three main issues raised by this Bill. First, the issue of standards, because this Bill introduces a number of new standards. It contains a definition, for example, of "proof" and it contains a reference to a number of measures of capacity. Secondly, I want to deal later with the way we assess Tobacco Duty and, thirdly, I want to deal with the very serious losses which are accruing to the Treasury at the moment— I estimate upwards of £10 million a year—through the methods employed in the technique of applying taxation under this Bill to the brewers.
If hon. Members opposite are to attempt to spend a great deal of Parliamentary time to gain £1 million or so from the wearers of surgical belts and surgical boots they might pause for a moment to see whether they could adjust the law slightly and save £10 million which now, through a flaw in the law, is being passed to the brewers.
I come first to my point relating to standards. There are three types of

standards dealt with in this Bill. First, there is the standard of proof; second, the standard of original gravity; and, third, the standard of measures. I think it is fair to say that all of them contravene in spirit, and in one case actually in deliberate intention, the recommendations of that excellent committee, the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation.
I give the House one example of that. In Clauses 146 (6) and 149 (5) there are references to what is described as a "reputed quart" and a "reputed pint." Most people would suppose that what was reputed to be a pint or a quart would be nearly a pint or nearly a quart. If they desire to know what former Acts meant by those things and they search in the definitions of this Bill, they will find there is no definition of either term. That is quite natural because, of course, they are illegal; and it has been illegal to use them since 1878. They were made illegal by the Weights and Measures Act of that year. Unfortunately, persons who wished to sell rather less than full measure have been encouraged to use them by their continued repetition in old laws prior to that date, but that is no reason why we should encourage them now.
One finds no reference to them in ordinary works of reference. Whitaker and similar respectable reference books do not deal with them and one has to go to the "Brewers' Almanac" to find a definition. That says:
The reputed pint and the reputed quart bottle are nominally one-twelfth and one-sixth of a gallon respectively but there is some variations in practice.
This, of course, is a typical form of deception which is practised on the public, and it has already been the subject of Government examination. I refer right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the report of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation. Paragraph 355 of that very valuable document says:
Reference has already been made to the fact that, although the terms 'reputed quart' and 'reputed pint' are illegal for use in trade, they are used in certain statutes. We consider that all reference to these terms should be removed from the Statute Book at the earliest possible opportunity.
This, surely, is the earliest possible opportunity. When the then President of the Board of Trade in the Labour Gov-


ernment was asked by a Member of the party opposite what were the intentions in these matters, he said it was the intention of the then Government to implement this part of the Report. Has there been a change in policy? We know, of course, that there was a secret promise given to the brewing interests that if hon. Members opposite were returned they would make certain changes in the law favourable to the brewing interests.
It is only fair for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say whether there has been any other promise—to allow the reputed quart and the reputed pint, the easiest way of making cheap money in the brewing industry, to remain. Why else has there been this change in policy. Why, when one Government have undertaken to remove from legislation the reputed quart and the reputed pint, should the present Government now go back and put it into the first Consolidation Measure they introduce? [Laughter.] This is quite a serious point.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, as I understand it, consider themselves the party of Empire. In fact, they do not like the expression "Commonwealth"; indeed, the Prime Minister has made famous, in a classic speech, a reference to the Imperial pint. Now there are a number of Imperial measures and this Bill goes out to set up another one. This is the Imperial proof, and we are now faced with another new Clause in this Bill.
Clause 172 does what has not been done before in Excise legislation. It attempts to define what is meant by "proof." I suggest this was done by a Parliamentary draftsman who did not quite understand what the scientists had said to him. It will be seen from the definition that first, to discover what is meant by proof the content shall be measured at 51 degrees Fahrenheit. When one wants to discover whether it is one degree or more over proof one has to reduce the temperature to 50 degrees Fahrenheit. It is a fantastic complication, obviously due to a misunderstanding of the rules governing the use of Sikes' hydrometer, the famous instrument of 1816 on which the original definition of proof is based.
Would it not have been better to look at what is being done in the Commonwealth and to consider what are the definitions which other Commonwealth

countries, faced with this problem, have adopted? I suggest consideration of the Australian definition which I think is far superior to the definition in this Bill. It says:
Spirit of a strength equal to that of pure ethyl alcohol compounded with distilled water so that the resultant mixture, at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit, has a specific gravity of 0.91976 as compared with that of distilled water at the same temperature.
That is a far simpler definition than the one contained in this Bill.
If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wants to be a little more insular and pursue a "Little Englander" policy, I might refer him to the latest report of the Customs and Excise because they, in a footnote, provide all he needs. They say:
Proof spirit is spirit which … contains 49.28 per cent. of alcohol by weight or 57.1 per cent. by volume at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
But it goes even further than that. If the Financial Secretary will look at his definition he will see that Clause 172 (3) says:
The expressions 'degree of proof,' degree over proof' and 'degree under proof' shall be construed by reference to a scale.
Then, after having defined what is over proof and what is under proof, two of which factors are never used now, for very good reasons, because it would disclose the weakness of the spirit, the Clause fails to give any definition whatever of the degree of proof, which is the form in which proof is always measured, as I am sure is known by anyone who has ever seen whisky bottled.
Perhaps I might say a word about Sikes' hydrometer, from which all this confusion arises. What happened originally, as the Financial Secretary is probably well aware from his brief, is that in 1816 an Excise officer by the name of Mr. Bartholomew Sikes invented an instrument whose object was to define what was then thought to be proof. What was then thought to be proof was what had been thought to be proof by an officer in the Excise who had lived some 50 years earlier, a Mr. Clarke, and what Mr. Clarke had thought to be proof was what was thought to be proof in the Middle Ages. What was thought to be proof in the Middle Ages was the amount of spirit which, when mixed with gunpowder, burned with a steady flame and did not either explode, which was over-proof, or extinguish which was under-proof.
It is necessary that we should not have a standard of this importance for the export trade based on what long-dead and very often, I am sorry to say, forgotten Excise officers thought was the best way of trying to work out by some medieval calculation the ability of gunpowder to explode. This is particularly so because the United States, to which country whisky is one of our greatest exports, have a system of proof which is quite different from ours. They start off with the whisky always seeming stronger from the label, but it is in fact actually weaker, and we very often do not get the benefit of the strength of our Scotch whisky because it is assessed in a different form and involves different calculations in order to work it out for export.
I would suggest that from a practical point of view, when this matter comes before the Committee of the Lords and Commons, it would be very desirable that there should be some consultation with the countries of the Commonwealth to see if we can get a common standard, and, secondly, there should be some possibility of having a common standard with the United States.
The Financial Secretary will, no doubt, be very familiar with that most valuable document, the Report of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation. They go in some length into the question of standardising our products with those of the United States. I cannot think that there would be any harm in us coming a little closer to the United States in this matter. It can easily be done. It is only a question of a few degrees of alcohol. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), will excuse me for so putting it. The United States have a simple system of proof. That proof consists of 50 per cent. of alcohol, and I do not see why we should not agree with the Commonwealth countries to have a similarly simple definition.
Clause 171 defines original gravity. Original gravity consists of the proportion of solid matter to water in beer before it is fermented, and as the amount of solid matter is small as compared with the water, it is usual to multiply the ratio by 1,000 in order to make it appear rather larger and become a workable scale. It is absolutely essential that this Bill should contain in regard to original

gravity the same provisions as it contains in regard to spirit. That is to say that when a brewer brews at a certain original gravity and the duty is calculated on the original gravity, that original gravity should be declared. The proof degree of spirit is declared. The Acts so provide. Why should they not provide that the original gravity of beer should be declared? So far as I know, the only organisations which do this are the Co-op breweries. I do not think they have suffered in their trade because they have so done.
There is no reason why we should not make compulsory the declaration of the original gravity of beer. Indeed, if we do not do that in the Bill, it makes absolute nonsense of Clause 163. Clause 163 provides a very severe penalty for any dealer or retailer of beer who dilutes any beer or adds anything to beer other than finings for the purpose of clarification. But how can anyone tell whether anything has been added to the beer if the original gravity at which it was obtained cannot be disclosed?
This is a practical problem which for some time has been worrying inspectors of weights and measures in the country, and I will quote from a passage of the current report of the Inspector of Weights and Measures for Kent. He said:
The position with regard to beer sampling is not very satisfactory"—
understandably so—
The analyses of samples of bitter beer taken in the county during the last two years show the original gravity to vary between 1,029.4 and 1,038.9. The price charged per pint for all these samples was the same.
But, of course, in the one case someone is making a very large sum indeed out of that difference in gravity which it is supposed by the unfortunate drinkers is the sum which is being paid in taxation. For every degree of gravity the price per barrel of beer varies by 6s. 7½d. It is even worse than that. The Report goes on to say:
Samples of mild beer varied in original gravity between 1,028.0 and 1,032.4. In some cases the charge made for the mild was 11d. a pint and in others Is a pint. This does not mean that in every case the cheaper beer was weaker in strength because one of the mild beers sold at 11d. per pint had an original gravity of 1,034.4, whereas another at 1s. per pint analysed at an original gravity of 1.029.0.


This really is a bad gap in our system of defining standards, and this Measure should be closely examined. We should not part with this Bill until we have had some assurance from the Financial Secretary that it is proposed to do something on the lines I have suggested. I hope he will give us a little further clarification of what is meant by Clause 163. By adding what to beer does one commit an offence? Is it to be an offence to use a machine which is known to the brewers as a utiliser? It will be remembered that this machine was described in classic prose by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who described its workings in this form:
One large and noted firm of brewers habitually provides for and recommends to its tenants and managers what is known as a 'utiliser.'…The waste pipe leads direct into the 'utiliser' and the liquor passes through a filter … and thence into the main supply pipe from cask in cellar to beer engine. The valve control operates automatically so that about one-eleventh of the filtered waste is pulled into every half pint passing from the cask to the beer pump in the bar. The 'utiliser' is generally connected to the engine pulling ale, this being dark in colour, and therefore less readily to be observed cloudy.
That was a description of the utiliser as in use in 1930. A very interesting fact about the utiliser is that if anyone studies Lord Balfour's evidence before the Royal Commission of 1931 one sees that, tucked away, is the name of the distinguished firm of brewers who use the utiliser. A few months ago, when I raised a question on this matter, I had a letter from a publican who mentioned the utiliser in his house. I checked up the brewery to which his house belonged. The house belonged to the same brewery whose machine was so graphically described by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. So I think it would help both sides of the industry if the Financial Secretary would clarify this point. Does Clause 163 make it an offence to use a utiliser, or does it not?
I understand that the defence of the brewer is that while in any overspill and drippings there is, naturally, a certain amount of external material that comes in that is merely incidental, and nothing has been added to the beer. It is merely flat beer, stale beer, beer that has remained for some time in customers' glasses; but beer all the same. Therefore, there is no dilution, or offence against the Acts.
That may be the view of the Financial Secretary. If it is, it is only fair to brewers who may be investing large sums of money in the installation of these machines, to make it clear that they can do so with an easy conscience and inform them that there is no offence in so doing. If, on the other hand, it is illegal, it should be made clear and they should be given a reasonable opportunity to get rid of these machines before prosecutions are started for their use.
I will leave that side of the matter and turn for a moment to the question of Tobacco Duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the very grave statement which he made to us, described how important it was to restrict as far as possible the use of United States tobacco and how necessary it was to find other sources. No doubt the Financial Secretary—or the learned Solicitor-General—will be able to tell us when he comes to reply whether he has ever considered the effects of the provisions of this Act and the Customs Acts generally on our sources of tobacco.
Roughly speaking, among countries which are not entirely Socialist, there are three methods by which tobacco is taxed. There is the first one, which is employed in France, Italy and other countries, in which tobacco is a Government monopoly. Therefore, the entire profits on the sale come to the Government. There is the second method, employed in the United States—which, if I may again venture to commend it to the Financial Secretary, is, I think, far superior to the one we at present employ—in which tobacco is taxed by the affixation of stamps to each particular branded packet of cigarettes, cigars or tobacco. There is the third method, which we employ, and which is described in this Bill, of taxing tobacco at its port of entry.
The difficulty is that tobacco, when growing, contains a certain amount of moisture. If tax is paid on that moisture the manufacturer naturally complains, and, therefore, it is essential to have tobacco which is grown to an absolutely fixed moisture content. Any degree of variation in the moisture content of a sale will make the Customs authorities reject it; obviously so, because all they can do is to take a sample of tobacco, analyse it and see how much moisture


there is, and allow so much on that moisture to the importer. They then take one or two samples from other bales of that type of tobacco and if they find it has quite a different moisture content they cannot allow that package to go forward because there is no basis for taxation.
It is easy to grow tobacco with a uniform moisture content under semi-industrial conditions, but where you are dealing with a peasant-grown tobacco it is very difficult to do so, and one of the reasons why it was impossible to deliver to this country the amount of tobacco specified in the trade agreement with Yugoslavia was that the average moisture content varied very considerably from bale to bale. Yet it was really first-class tobacco, as I understand it.
The quarrel was not that we could not have used the tobacco, but that our system of taxation was so inflexible that though this was the best tobacco we could get, and at a very good price, we could not afford to buy it because the Customs authorities could not see any means of taxing it. That seems to me to be a highly unsatisfactory position.
When one looks at the provisions for drawback, one sees a calculation of moisture content of about 14 per cent. for tobacco; but the import calculation is 10 per cent., and the tolerance up to which manufacturers will go is only 14 per cent., and many Balkan tobaccos have a moisture content of 17 per cent. or 18 per cent.
It is also foolish, because once the tobacco is got in the moisture has to be put back and, in order to manufacture it, one has to get the moisture content up to about 32 per cent. Once that is done, of course, the moisture starts drying out again. Therefore, someone who pays for a pound of tobacco may not be buying a pound of tobacco and has no means of knowing whether or not he has bought a pound of tobacco because there are no regulations for proscribing that when tobacco is wrapped the original moisture content of the tobacco should be marked on the wrapping. If I may suggest it to the Financial Secretary, that is another of the recommendations of the Weights and Measures Legislation Commission. It is one which, I suggest, might very profitably be considered by the Committee which is dealing with this matter.
I come now to Clause 133. This is the Clause which provides that it shall be assumed that in the course of manufacture the brewer will waste 6 per cent. of what he manufactures. The history of it is particularly interesting. It dates from 1880. Even in the brewing business, I may say there have been some technical improvements since that date, but in 1880 there was an immense number of brewers. Then there were 16,798 brewers who were licensed for sale; today only 569 are licensed for sale. In those days, of course, it did not matter if a bit of leeway was allowed because, with tax at only a farthing or so in the pint, it did not matter if one gave brewers a little more "on the side."
I think it probable that in those days, even, the amount of wastage was only in the neighbourhood of 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent. As I understand it now—and the Financial Secretary will correct me, I am sure, if I am wrong on this important point—the average wastage in a brewery is in the neighbourhood of a half of 1 per cent. The Act, in another Clause, provides that if there is any accidental spilling of beer the brewer can claim independently for this; but this is 6 per cent. which is supposed to leak from the casks or from the pipes and spill away while it is actually being brewed.
If the brewers are right in saying that the amount of tax which they pay is 9d. per pint—and I think there is reason to suppose that they are rather exaggerating the original gravity of the beer they are selling to the public if that is correct; but that is the one they advertise, so it is fair to take it—supposing they waste 1 per cent. they have a 5 per cent. bonus. Here is a little sum which can be worked out by the Financial Secretary, when he replies. There are 288 pints in every barrel and there are 25⅓ million bulk barrels of beer sold, and if there is 9d. on every pint of that, the Financial Secretary will see that there is something in the neighbourhood of £12 million going astray.
We are to spend weeks in trying to take money from people who need medical attention and yet the Financial Secretary is sitting there smiling and saying, "What does it matter?" Is this one of the other undertakings that were given to the brewers—that this sacred figure of 6 per cent. should not be altered? Will the Financial Secretary give me this under-


taking—that he will order an inquiry into the brewing industry to determine what is the average amount of waste today, and that if he finds that the waste is still the same as it was in 1880, when there were nearly 17,000 brewers as against less than 600 today, he will have another inquiry into why so much is being wasted; and, if he finds that it is not so great, will agree to adjust this figure.
Is there any reason why the House should be asked to pass in an afternoon without any careful consideration, a Bill which on my figures—and the Financial Secretary will no doubt correct them if I am wrong—will give a bonus of £12 million to the brewers? The only argument I know is that this is what has gone it the past. But hon. Gentlemen opposite are always telling us that the situation is so different now from what it was in the past. Before, we had a free Health Service. Now, they say, so difficult is the situation of the country that we cannot afford it.
If we cannot afford a free Health Service, can we afford a gift of £12 million to the brewers out of the Excise Revenue? This is a question of priorities, and it will be interesting to know which priority the Solicitor-General places first—the bonus to the brewers or the health of the people of this country.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: I want to add my congratulations to those which have already been paid on the production of this excellent consolidating and amending Measure, and also my own small thanks to all those who have worked so hard in the preparation of the Bill.
It was a pity that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) marred what was otherwise an entertaining and informative speech by his party political points. The same argument can be used about any discussion on financial matters by relating it to changes in the operation of the Health Service. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman in any way strengthened his case for a review of the methods of collection of some of these Excise Duties which, on general grounds, I believe to be a strong one.
Indeed, the important thing to appreciate about this Bill is that the way things

are done by the paid officials of the Customs and Excise Service is a reflection of the fabric of the law. Similarly, the new fabric which this Measure will consolidate will decide the way in which things will be done in the future. It is urgently necessary therefore for us to review the present methods of collection, the present operation of the service, in order to ensure that nothing is crystallised which ought to be changed.
One of the most important of the questions which arise is that in many cases the amounts of duty collected are very much greater than the value of the goods on which the duties are levied. That leads to a number of anomalies and to difficulties which were not envisaged when the taxes and duties were originally imposed in a more modified form. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the collection of the Tobacco Duty, and I think he made a very important point about the moisture content. It might well be for consideration whether the duty could not be collected at a later stage of manufacture, particularly now that manufacture is so strictly controlled by firms of repute who could be relied on to play their part in ensuring a new and better method of collection.
I understand that nowadays, in a modern cigarette factory, the dust which falls from the machine has to be collected with great care because it is so valuable —not because of its intrinsic value—but because of the amount of duty which attaches to even the dust which falls from the machine. It cannot be right that a firm should be put to that type of additional cost merely because of the artificial value which attaches to the waste products as a result of the general level of the duty being so high.
Much the same is beginning to apply, of course, to hydro-carbon oils, which are referred to in a Clause of the Bill. In the old days, when the duty was small, petrol was a relatively cheap commodity, for example, but now that the duty is so high the commodity has an artificial value and such matters as wastage through evaporation, which were of small financial account either to the distributors or the retailers, are now very serious matters indeed. They see money evaporating out of all proportion to the value of the spirit itself.
A number of the Clauses refer to the work of the Customs Service. The ex-Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), referred particularly to Clause 66. I agree with him that it imposes some rights upon Customs officers which at first sight are perhaps too great. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in particular to documents, personal papers, brief cases and to similar articles. I wonder whether he realises that such articles may be used to conceal a large amount of currency and paper money. It is surely necessary, therefore, that the Customs officers should have the right to make inquiries about purely personal papers and documents which did not matter in the old days. That is surely right and proper, provided it is accepted that the Customs Service should be responsible for the detection of the smuggling of currency.
There seems to be a certain element of duplication, however, in that there are exchange control officers at the ports whose function it is to ensure that passengers arriving and departing conform to the currency regulations, while it is also the duty of the Customs officers —a duty added to them at a time when they are exceptionally busy—to satisfy themselves that no currency is being illegally smuggled into or out of the country.
I suggest to the Financial Secretary that that element of overlapping, which is occurring in many ports and airports, should be investigated and either that the responsibility should be given to the Customs Service, and they should be allowed to retain their staff to carry out the work properly, or alternatively that they should be freed from this additional burden and it should be entirely the responsibility of the exchange control officers.
If it is to be the responsibility of the exchange control officers, let us see an end to the double questioning which occurs at many ports today—indeed, I think it occurs at all of them. The Customs officers ask how much money you have, and at a later stage of the process of getting clearance you are asked by another officer, this time a plain clothes officer, whether you have any money in excess of a certain amount.

The practice envisaged in Clause 66 is hallowed by time and general usage. The passenger is required to declare whether he has any dutiable articles and then, as most of us who travel into and out of the country know, there is the usual, hurried conversation with a Customs officer, certain items are mentioned, prices are attached to them and there is something in the nature of a bargaining transaction. Is that a method which should be perpetuated? Ought we always to maintain such a method?
The Americans require a written declaration by the passenger. It saves a great deal of questioning and what one might call bargaining. If goods are found in the passenger's luggage, in excess of those declared, proceedings can be taken against him. At the same time, the list is there in writing so that a lot of the work of the Customs officer is done for him. He does not have to be a clerk as well as a Customs officer, writing out in a copy book pad the details of the articles and the rates of duty. This, of course, all has to be done very often at times of stress late at night or early in the morning, or when the clearance and baggage sheds at the ports are congested with people in a hurry to get away.
As an extension of that method I hope that the urgent need for economy on the part of all Government Departments will not lead to any abandonment of the developing system whereby Customs officers travel on liners and can check passengers' baggage in advance of arrival, so that when the passengers arrive at Southampton or any other port they can walk off with all the Customs formalities concluded in advance.
There is another matter which, I think, deserves reference at present, and that is the concession which Customs officers are allowed to apply in respect of personal goods which are brought into this country. It is generally accepted, I believe, that a person may bring into this country up to half a pint of spirits for his own use—whether diluted or proof or whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch would have them described as—or up to one ounce of tobacco or 50 cigarettes. It is a well known concession, but nowhere appears in writing for the very good reason that officers can withhold it. It


does not apply if more than the concessionary quantity of spirits or tobacco is declared at the time of importation. It does seem rather unfair that, if one brings in only half a pint of spirits one gets it duty free, but that if one brings in a pint one has to pay duty on the whole pint and loses the value of the concession.
The concession, if it is a concession, ought to apply as equally as possible to all. If it is really a concession, and if it is to be permanent, then I should like to see it written into this Bill so that all passengers know exactly how they stand. It is also apt to be regarded by some passengers as being in the nature of a personal gift of the Customs officer as to whether he shall extend the concession to the individual or not, and that imposes an additional task upon a very excellent body of men in explaining the circumstances to individual passengers. I hope that if there are other concessions, as there may well be, those concessions, too, can be codified and made generally known.
There is another aspect of the work of the Customs officers, and that is the inspection of imported gift parcels at the sorting offices of the Post Office throughout the country. I do suggest that if concessions are to be given at all—and they have been given in respect of spirits and tobacco—concessions should certainly be possible for imported gift parcels.
We have all, I am sure, had experience of our constituents writing to us complaining of the receipt of a parcel, perhaps from a relative serving overseas, on which the duty and Purchase Tax levy-able was greater than the gift itself. Surely this is a case where we should have some discretion shown and where bona fide gifts should be allowed into this country without payment of duty and Purchase Tax. I know it will be argued that if this were to be allowed it would lead to abuses. I suggest that officers at present engaged on the routine collection of duty and tax on bona fide gifts would have their time freed for following up all abuses and organised rackets, and in this way save the innocent from suffering with the racketeers.
As one would expect in such a Bill, there are a number of references to forfeiture. This is indeed, a highly cherished

principle of the Customs and Excise, that when goods are suspected of having been smuggled they may be forfeited. I am quite sure that no Government would lightly abandon their right to enforce forfeiture, but it does seem that that principle, while it may have been valuable in the old days before there was an ordinary civil police in this country, is not now so necessary. Impound offending goods, perhaps; but is the principle of forfeiture really necessary, particularly when it is extended to vehicles carrying goods which may themselves have been smuggled?
There was a good deal of publicity a few days ago over the unfortunate case of the taxi driver who was taking a man up from the docks who had a suitcase, and it so happened that the suitcase contained smuggled articles. Not only was the suitcase impounded, but the taxi as well, since it was a vehicle which was being used for the transport of smuggled goods. That does seem to be carrying the principle of forfeiture too far and surely the right to seize and hold forfeit goods should be limited to those cases where it is really necessary in order to obtain the duty or to punish the offender.
In yet another Clause I see that there is a good deal of reference to the definition of hydrocarbon oils. I was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch did not direct his considerable knowledge of chemistry and weights and measures to the complicated case of hydrocarbon oils, because here the definition, which may have been sound in the 19th Century or the earlier part of the 20th Century, is no longer appropriate.
I can see the original discussion in the Departmental Committee proceeding along these lines: "Well, we must catch the petrol that is going to he used in these new fangled motor vehicles, but we must protect the poor man's lamp oil. We must not impose a tax on the burning oil of the people but only on the petrol of these luxury motorists." And so we have seen grow up a purely arbitrary definition of light hydrocarbon oils and medium hydrocarbon oils which has led and will continue to lead to a good deal of what I can only describe as taxation engineering, where the best motive


unit is not necessarily chosen, but rather one whose fuel will escape tax.
I do not think there would be a single paraffin powered tractor in Britain today were it not for the fact that paraffin does not attract hydrocarbon oil duty. On purely technical engineering grounds nothing can be said in favour of the paraffin tractor as opposed to the petrol tractor. Were it not for the tax on petrol all farmers would undoubtedly use petrol powered tractors. That is one example. Something similar is growing up in the field of aviation, where jet powered aircraft have to pay no tax on paraffin fuel they use, but piston operated engines using petrol will, in fact, have to pay the full duty appropriate to light hydrocarbon oil. Here, surely, is a case where the line of demarcation must be redrawn.
I want to refer to only one other matter, and that is to the vast amount of purely routine work done by Excise officers up and down the country, particularly in connection with firms of repute. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch has made a good deal of fun about the brewers, but I am sure that he will agree that, where it is a matter of complying with the Excise laws, they are honourable, precise and accurate. Indeed, they have to be, because all of them sign formidable bonds which would render them liable to severe losses if they were to try to get around the proper measuring of the taxable commodity in their breweries.
In view of all the precautions that have been taken and can be taken by the Excise, could they not delegate a good deal of the routine checking and testing to the breweries' own staffs? Such a system was very properly adopted by the A.I.D. during the war, whereby they delegated the inspection of aircraft parts to the appropriate inspectors of the firms concerned. It was a system of delegation which worked very well. The Financial Secretary, in his efforts to reduce staffs, or to prevent staffs from growing, should consider extending the A.I.D. principle to the Excise service so that firms might be allowed to do much more of their own checking, testing and preparing their own returns, subject only to an occasional check by an Excise officer, thus freeing the, for the most part, skilled and well-

trained staffs for other and more important duties.
When devising methods of collecting duty, particularly when the sums are so large, as they are nowadays, special regard must be had to the amount of working capital which may be locked up needlessly by Excise officers, and in any discussion which may arise out of a review of the present methods I hope it will always be borne in mind that, while it is necessary to collect the duty, it is not fair to collect the duty too soon in the manufacturing process of the dutiable article itself. If the Government are making money dear, then they must have regard to the cost of their own services to the firms who are thereby affected, and I hope that as a result of this Bill, and of such necessary Amendments to it as we shall propose, we may have a Measure which will help industry and the Revenue.

7.42 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: We have all listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), and we on this side would certainly agree with him when he adds his plea to that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) for a scientific attack upon all these problems, for the sooner we have that the better it will be for our community, and the more will it redound to our credit in this House. These archaic and old-fashioned customs of appraisement no longer fit modern society. In particular, I was impressed by the plea that Tobacco Duty should be imposed at the last stage and not too early, where it obviously creates confusion.
When the hon. Member spoke of duty on gifts I was reminded of a letter I received from a pottery manufacturer a week or so ago, who complained bitterly and asked me to approach the Financial Secretary. He referred to a gift he had already received and another with which he was threatened. It appears that some time ago he entertained at his home some Canadian buyers of his pottery, one of whom accidentally made a false step just before dinner and smashed a statuette, a pottery figure, and also a tray of cocktail glasses. There was some confusion, but my friend explained that it was of no moment.
However, we all know that people from the New World are very generous, and before much time had passed a statuette of the same type was sent over from Canada, on which he had to pay rather more duty than he expected, or thought was necessary. After all, he himself makes these pottery statuettes very well. In his letter he asks what he is to do about the cocktail glasses which he anticipates and now fears receiving, expecting to be faced with a bill of about £20 for that gift. I had to write back and say that I did not think I could put it to the Treasury; that I had tried in the past but found them quite adamant; that I thought they were rather stupid about it, and that it would be a waste of time writing. However, I hope he will realise that we have thought of him tonight, and that it was not I in the first place but the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale who raised the whole principle involved.

Mr. James Hudson: Did the gentleman from whom my hon. Friend received this information not think that probably he could well do without the cocktails in future?

Dr. Stross: I regret to say I have not the information as to whether or not cocktails were in the glasses. For their sakes, I sincerely hope they had had some before the glasses were broken.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch described the use of this extraordinary machine called the utiliser, and I now understand for the first time what it is, what it does, and what I have seen happening in many places in my wanderings. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), knows about it.

Mr. Hudson: Yes.

Dr. Stross: I am glad to hear it.
I thought my hon. and learned Friend made a good point in inferring that it was not reasonable to assume that everything that drips out from the tap and goes somewhere else is beer and only beer. Obviously, it is not necessarily only beer. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) once initiated a debate on cracked pottery and the dangers of its use, asking that it should be forbidden

by law. As a medical man, I would point out that it is not in the best public interest to drink beer from what is possibly a contaminated glass. With present-day consciousness about the clean handling of food, is it not reasonable to expect that beer should be drunk, as it were, at first-hand and not from someone else's vessel?
It may be that a sick person has just been drinking out of the glass, and beer is not a very powerful antiseptic. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, knows that, however much he condemns beer as a commodity, it is weak in specific gravity; its alcoholic content is low—not much higher than that of some forms of ginger beer, and much lower than the form of cider after drinking which my hon. Friend once explained to me he became affected. He did not know what it would do to him. It has never done it since because he has been an abstainer for ever after, and I do not blame him after such an experience. This is not only a question of aesthetics. It may be a matter of public health, and I therefore wish to add my plea that utilisers of this type should be forbidden and never allowed to be used again.
A large portion of this Bill is concerned with the taxation of our own weaknesses and, to some extent, of our vices. That is not to be complained of, for the principle is to give us some protection. It can be argued that the community is best protected from excess by means of taxation of this kind, whether it be of spirits, or whether it be tea or coffee—which are also dangerous if drunk to excess—or whether it be the excessive consumption of tobacco. The simpler we make our laws, as in this consolidated Bill, the better it will be for us all, because it will tend to bring about the most desirable end-result.
Everybody will remember the Hogarth print which shows what happened in "Gin Alley" in the days of the 18th century when one could get drunk for 1d., as the advertisement went, and dead drunk for 2d. This House then had to take cognizance of that fact and put an end to the type of drunkenness which was threatening to destroy our people. There were suicides, blindness and murder, and on investigation it was discovered that the sort of gin brewed from the rubbish that was used—and it was any kind of


stew or rubbish—was dangerous because it contained all sorts of alcohols other than ethyl alcohol, causing optic atrophy and blindness.

Mr. H. G. McGhee: It was all alcohol.

Dr. Stross: Perhaps my hon. Friend does not know the difference between methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol and other alcohols.

Mr. McGhee: Oh, yes, I do.

Dr. Stross: Just as that was all alcohol, so is every human being a human being, and all human beings have a right to continue their speeches without excessive interruption.
This contamination of the higher alcohols, even in small quantities, gives a "kick" to a liquor—that is the common term—and even a slight amount will cause optic atrophy, delirium and blindness, and drive people to acts which they otherwise would not dream of committing. The way in which this House acted then was to increase the duty on the raw materials from which the gin was brewed, making it impossible for the purveyors of these illicit stills to buy their rubbish cheaply and brew it. So, gradually, the distilling of gin fell into more reasonable hands, and, by doing so, became better in quality, and we had fewer accidents and less danger to public health.
But what follows from this? I think that we must take note that all this taxation which we are now imposing upon our people and upon ourselves should not be only for the purpose of merely bringing money into the Revenue. I am sure that the Financial Secretary would not dream of asking for these vast sums of money purely for the sake of getting money for specific purposes. He has to resort, so far as possible, to the most moral way of extorting money out of our folk, doing them the least possible harm, and, if possible, doing them some good in the process.
This brings me to some of the other Clauses, which are very interesting. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that he ought to look a little more carefully at the contents of the Bill. I know that there is a Clause on vinegar or makers, and, at the end—Clause 225 1. 7)—it states:

For the purposes of this Act, but for no other purpose, a person who makes with acetic acid any substitute for vinegar for sale shall be deemed to be a maker of vinegar for sale.
I would like to have seen, if I may suggest it with respect, something in the Clause forbidding the sale of substitutes for vinegar. It is not difficult to make good natural vinegar, and vinegar really is a natural commodity. It is either spoilt wine or spoilt beer in which the fermentation is allowed to go further so that there is acetic acid content rather than alcohol. It is a small point, but it is worth looking at.
If we are to pay so much money in taxation, let us have a little protection from it. We have in Clause 178 a section on home-grown tobacco. This is something which is bound to be of great interest to all constituents. Even in the atmosphere of Stoke-on-Trent, polluted as it is, in the backyards we grow with care very good tobacco. It is grown by people who have 15, 20 or 30 plants and who find them very interesting; unless they forget to nip off the buds at the top, in which case they become all flower and no leaves, and do not yield much tobacco. In the Clause it is stated that
no person shall grow tobacco, or cure tobacco grown in the United Kingdom
and that in any event he must be licensed and pay 5s., whether he grows or cures, and if he commits a fault he is liable to a penalty of £50 and the tobacco to be forfeited.
The majority of these growers in all our constituencies grow, as I say, a few plants. Some grow them purely for decorative purposes and never make any tobacco from them. These plants grow to eight or nine feet in height and have a very magnificent flower. Personally, I do not like to think that the wording of the Clause should be "grow or cure." I think that if people grow tobacco plants and do not cure them, they should not have to be licensed. I think that if they grow them in their own little gardens, and do not grow more than 30 plants, they should not have to be licensed at all, even if they cure them. I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider that point. It is a little hard for anyone who grows one or two plants of tobacco, perhaps by accident—and they can grow by accident when the seed is blown over from a neighbours' yard—that he has to


have a licence and, if he has not, he is, by this Clause, liable to a fine of £50.
Then we have the question of tea. Tea is not a delirient or an intoxicant, but it is certainly a stimulant. Clause 229, under the heading "Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, etc.," has two most interesting paragraphs (a) and (b) which refer to the analysis of imported tea which may have some other substance added to it or which may be exhausted tea. I would like some information on this matter. I am asking a serious question. I presume that "exhausted tea" is really like exhausted barley, first used for brewing our beer and then exported to make lager beer in some other country. So I assume that "exhausted tea" is imported tea leaves from which someone else has had a drink in the first place.
We are accustomed in this country to tea drinking. For some 200 years it has been the national custom to believe that it is good for one to drink tea. I worked out—I think that it was in 1940—that on an average consumption of three ounces of tea a week, our total national intake of pure caffein is about 50 million lb. a year. It is quite simple to work out. There is about one-and-a-half grains of pure caffein in the average strong cup of tea. Some people think nothing of drinking 10 cups of tea a day, which would give them 15 grains of caffein. The maximum medicinal dose of caffein for a day is five grains.
So it is apparent that some people who would never think of drinking beer intoxicate themselves by taking an excessive amount of caffein through their tea. Then they pose before us as virtuous people, forgetting that they are the truest type of drug addicts because caffein is a true cerebral stimulant, whereas the amount of alcohol found in beer, lager beer and cider can never be a dilerient, is not stimulating and is really ultimately depressing. In asking for information about "exhausted tea" being allowed to come in, I would like to know what sort of tea it is and what has been done to it to exhaust it. If the Financial Secretary would give me answers to these questions I would be greatly obliged to him.
I end by saying, as I said at the beginning, that this is obviously a most valuable Bill. If it can be improved upon in its later stages we shall all be happy

about it, and do all that we can on this side to assist the Financial Secretary in his duties.

7.58 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I feel that I ought to disclose that I am one of the tea drinking sinners to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) referred, before I intervene very briefly in this debate to make one very simple point in support of one of the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).
Before I do so, I think that it may interest the House to remind hon. Members of a very famous reporter of the House of Commons—a most unscrupulous reporter of the House of Commons—Dr. Johnson, who defined Excise as a hateful taxation levied upon commodities and adjudged not by the common judges of property but by wretches hired by those to whom the Excise is paid. Upon the occasion of this definition which he made on Excise in his dictionary, the Attorney-General of the time was consulted as to whether it was really a serious libel on Excisemen, and he decided that Dr. Johnson was guilty of libel but took the view that he should not be prosecuted, and our King of the time gave him a pension.
Clubs do a tremendous amount of business with the brewers, buying beer for hundreds of thousands of consumers, and for years they have been asking the brewers to disclose the specific gravity of the beer which they sell. For their own protection, the clubs have to set up departments to test the beers supplied to them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch was asking for a reasonable thing when he urged that the Bill, which compels the makers of spirits to disclose the specific gravity of the spirits, should also impose a condition on the brewers so that the clubs may be certain that they buy a commodity of a standard value.
I do not know what the motives of the brewers are. I have had occasion in this House to call attention to the fact that a simple test applied to the profits of some dozen reputable brewery companies last year showed an average of between 20 and 25 per cent. interest on the shares. It seems to me that the brewers, who are doing very well out of beer, should grant


the clubs this elementary piece of justice and declare the specific gravity of the beer so that the clubs may know that what they buy is of a certain standard. I hope that the Government will accept the plea of my hon. and learned Friend that such provision should be made in the Bill.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) very far in the description which he has given of gin produced under modern conditions. He seemed to think that in these modern days gin had lost some of the evil influences which were well recognised in an earlier century, but if he had been as keen to give us a genuine medical opinion about modern gin as about ancient gin a great deal could have been said about the serious consequences on the lives and health of people who fall victims to it. If medical opinion gets mixed in the way that it has done this evening about so obvious an evil, many of us will begin to be doubtful about medical opinions in many other directions.
To return to the main issues which have been raised in the debate, both the Financial Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) called me in aid at one part or another of the interesting cases they were making. I agree that we need to have in this Bill or some other Bill a straightening out of many of the things which have taken place in connection with the collection of Excise Duty, especially upon intoxicating liquors, which have played a large part in the course of the debate.
The Financial Secretary called my attention to the fact that the Twelfth Schedule begins with a reference to Acts which are to be repealed. One Act is the Sale of Beer Act, 1795, two Sections of which are to be repealed. Another Act is the famous Beerhouse Act, 1830. It is historical that the time has come to rid the Statute Book of that Act, because it was the one that Wellington introduced, in the belief that it was a temperance Measure, making beerhouses free and easy for everyone in the country in the hope that the gin drinking which had been prevalent would be limited. Its conse-

quences were the opposite of what he had intended. The great publicist of those days, Sydney Smith, referred to the "sovereign people of Britain lying drunken in their gutter" in consequence. It is good to know that something can happen in legislation to terminate that Act, with the exception of one small part of it which is retained. Other Beerhouse Acts are included in the list of Measures to be repealed.
As the Financial Secretary said when he was talking about fines, there ought to be some reconsideration of present-day values. I understand that fines which have been imposed with reference to smuggling and breaches of the excise and customs laws have been considerably increased. There is mention of a fine of £500 as well as forfeiture of goods and of instruments used in the illegal production or distribution of articles which are regulated under the customs and excise laws. Many other heavy penalties are imposed, and it is right that that should be so.
I doubt whether I could agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), who, in referring to charges against those who smuggle goods into the country, spoke about the injustice of the act of forfeiture. I am very doubtful whether there is any injustice in that act. These days when, in view of all sorts of new devices, customs officers are encountering increasing difficulties in regard to smuggling, I do not believe that any case can be made for the lightening of the penalties for that type of offence, and I believe that a good deal of consideration would have to be given by the House before it could agree with the plea by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale for the ending of forfeiture for such offences.
If it be right, in order to suit present-day values, to raise the penalties, why do the charges for the licences themselves remain so low, as is indicated in the Schedules? For example, the licence charge for wholesale distribution of spirits is only 15 guineas and the licence for the wholesale distribution of beer is as low as 10 guineas. Those figures are out of all proportion to the astronomical profits which the liquor trade is making today out of the sale of intoxicants. After the tremendous figures of profits which have been given to us in this House at different times and after all we know


about the constant appreciation of brewers' shares on the stock market, there is no case for the rate of licence charges which the Bill still contemplates.
We cannot, of course, discuss the Budget at this stage, although we are not very far from Budget day, but if there is any likelihood of the imposition of charges upon necessaries of life which are being discussed openly, to retain the sort of level of charges mentioned in the Bill is altogether out of the question, and some reconsideration should be given to it before the Bill becomes law.
I was especially interested in the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch that, either in connection with this Bill or in some other way, we ought to devise some means of assuring the purchasers of commodities such as beer and spirits of exactly what it is they are buying. Hon. Members seem to have been satisfied with the idea that as long as people are told precisely what is the specific gravity of beer they will be all right. A great deal more than that is wanted.
A Royal Commission rather carefully examined this question of statements made in advertisements and on labels about the value of liquors sold in bottles. The Royal Commission said that they were in the habit of scattering around palpably scientific untruths—an excellent phrase which I should have translated into more simple language—about the food value, for example, of beer, the milk that is in milk stout, the healing qualities of medicinal wines—I am sorry that my medicinal Friend has disappeared—that poor, deluded women are persuaded into buying by palpably scientific untruths.
I at once respond to the appeal, although my hon. Friend had very different motives from mine, that there should be printed on the label exactly what people are buying. What a boon it would be if people could know that regularly in their bottles of beer, at the high price they must now pay, there is 95 per cent., 96 per cent., or 97 per cent. water. They can buy water from their own taps for practically nothing. It would be a good thing if they could be told how little is left of the carbo-hydrates and other nutritive values in barley and other things which go to make up beer in the brewing processes; if people could read on those bottles, as they can on the bottles of a reputable firm of chemists

such as Messrs. Boots, of what is contained in the drug bottles, they could see how little is left after the brewing process is over of the food that the brewers in their advertisements pretend is there.
I entirely agree that there should be a reconsideration of this question so that people might be told the truth regarding this matter, not as my hon. Friend the Member for the Test Division for Southampton (Dr. King) suggested—that people might get more in the clubs—but that they would be willing, through the truth they learn, to buy less; and I believe that my hon. Friend agrees with me in that aim.
In one part of the Bill I see a reference to the use of sugar in the manufacture of beer and to the fines to be imposed if sugar is taken and utilised for brewing processes without due permission and due registration. I should think there is a specially good reason today why such a provision should appear.
At this moment, with the hue and cry which goes up from the people for greater quantities of sugar and with the threat of taking further supplies from the manufacture of sweets for our children, the time has arrived when the very sternest measures should be taken against the utilisation of sugar by the brewing trade on anything like the present scale. As I said once before in this House, the sugar they take in various forms is probably equivalent to from five to seven weeks' ration of the sugar people need as a whole. In that situation there is a special need for the sternest provisions against any increasing use of sugar, or its derivatives, in the trade.
I realise that the issues upon which I have embarked are too big to be held within the scope of the provisions of the Bill, and I do not propose to trespass any more on the patience of the House, or on your patience, Sir, but I think it right to say this in these days of waste and of threat against great and important services.
One of my hon. Friends referred to the Health Service and the necessity for preserving the sale, under proper conditions, of intoxicants. He would have been on the surest grounds if he had said, as I say now, that one of the fundamental causes of ill-health in this country, one of the reasons why we have to spend in our national Budget on local taxation so much


on preventable disease and crime is the enormous expenditure on intoxicants that still goes on in our midst. Anything we can do, either by this Bill or any Bill, to reduce that process would do far more towards the attainment of a finer standard of public health than could be obtained by making it easier for this deleterious substance to come so much into the possession and enjoyment of the people.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Price: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is not here, as I want to make two comments on what he said at the end of his rather ingenious and ingenuous speech. He suggested that there was a loophole in the law by means of which the brewers were able to evade the payment of £12 million per year in duty—[An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say that."] He suggested that.

Mr. Hale: My hon. and learned Friend said that Section 133 of the Act specifically gives to the brewers a wastage tax of 6 per cent. on all the beer they handle and under modern conditions there is no such wastage.

Mr. Price: I agree. I realise that. I did not say that it was illegal. My statement was that the hon. and learned Member said that there was a loophole in the law by means of which they were able to avoid payment of £12 million a year which they ought to pay. The hon. Member has simply said what I said but has used far more words to say it.
I wish to make one or two comments. First, the hon. and learned Member's arithmetic was wrong. If his other facts are accepted the sum involved is £15 million per year. Second, if this loophole does exist, and if it could be closed, and if the brewers could be mulcted of an extra £15 million a year, where does the hon. Member think that money is to come from? It cannot possibly come out of the brewers' profits, because it is far more than the whole of the net profits of the brewing industry. It would simply result either in a reduction of the duty or, which is much more likely, another increase in the price of beer.
The position is not, therefore, as the hon. and learned Member for Horn-

church represented it—that we could get an extra £12 million out of the brewing industry and thus avoid the necessity of inflicting charges of approximately the same amount in respect of the National Health Service. If we adopted the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member we should not only have to ask the working man to pay something towards the Health Service but also to pay an extra £15 million a year towards his beer, a suggestion for which the working man will not thank him.
I wish to make one other small point on this matter. If the hon. and learned Member's suggestion has anything in it, during the last six years the Socialist Government have made a present to the brewing industry of £90 million. I have a very vivid imagination, but even my imagination falters at that prospect.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) made the best comment on his principal observations when he said, "I wish to make one other small point." I have a feeling, taking his oration, on his own evaluation, that I need not follow him greatly into the point he made, but I may return to it in a few minutes. Did the hon. Member wish to make an observation?

Mr. Bernard Braine: Why bother to return to the point if it was so small?

Mr. Hale: Because even a small point, if it be an attack on a Member who is not here, should not be dealt with in the absence of that Member. That is one of the reasons why I may come to it in due course.
I am grateful for one speech made on the other side of the House. We had a comfortable little debate on this Bill, on the whole one in which it has been very heavy going, full of expertise from all sides. I rise because I feel the time must come in matters of complexity when some one who has no expertise and who claims no special knowledge should bring to bear on the debate a virgin and indeed an innocent mind.
I wish to express my sincere apologies to the Financial Secretary for the fact that I had to leave in the middle of his interesting and charming opening speech as I had a meeting to attend downstairs.


But I was able to come back and hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). When I left, the Financial Secretary was saying, in spite of what I said in a previous debate, that he proposed to indulge in what he described as a few more encomia. I was hoping that he was going on to say that encomia were this afternoon at premia.
It seemed to me eminently gratifying to hear some literary quotations even if some had not been carefully prepared. Dr. Johnson—whom I admire very much —on Excise, was rather damned by Johnson on "pensions" when he accepted a pension himself. So far as his definition of Excise is concerned I suspect that his views may have been influenced by the fact that Tom Paine was the most distinguished contemporary Excise officer and that Tom Paine was a man whom Dr. Johnson did not greatly admire. This afternoon, earlier, I referred to another great Excise officer, Robbie Burns, who did not hold his office actively for a long period.
I must say that one thing which has surprised me very much has been the amount of concentration on alcohol that has taken place in this debate. I thought it would be a nautical debate; that we should have piracy on the high seas, ships being ordered into port and all the fascinating things that we could find in the 320 or so Clauses. However, we are all grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch for his contribution. I like to think that when we amass that library of tomes with attractive titles such as, "Byles on Bills," we shall now have "Bing on Gravity." It seems to me very appropriate and one which we shall all want to add to our collection.
I am sorry my hon. and learned Friend is not here, since in his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing. North (Mr. J. Hudson), referred to Sydney Smith. Sydney Smith pointed out to his brother that they were both completely contrary to the laws of nature, that his brother had risen by his gravity and that he, Sydney Smith, had sunk by his levity. I hope that will not be the fate of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch.
Having endeavoured to be disarming for a few minutes, I must come to the

gravamen of my charge against the Bill, and there are one or two charges against it. No one now claims that this is a consolidating Measure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), very properly decided to initiate a Measure for consolidating the laws of Customs and Excise. Then it was found that the law was in such a dreadful mess that something had to be done about it even as a temporary measure. It could not be brought to Parliament and shown in all its horror without some provisions being made. It is true—I am not trying to make a party point—that most of these matters go back to long before the Socialist Government. Some go back to 1750.
It is amazing how Parliament has been ignorant of the law of Customs and Excise. For five years we had the privilege of listening to Members opposite, including the Financial Secretary, talking about snoopers, the liberty of the subject, rights of entering private houses, and so on. He sometimes entertained us, sometimes instructed us; on some occasions I have found myself in agreement with him in these matters. But the powers given to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in the old days are fantastically surprising. It is to the shame of every Government which has been in office in the last 50 years that nothing has been done about it up to now. It would be a shame to let this Bill go to any Committee without at least saying a few things to that Committee about what we think of these powers.
As recently as last Wednesday at Plymouth a taxi-cab had, we were told, been confiscated under the Customs and Excise law because it had carried contraband without anyone connected with the taxicab knowing anything about it. The owner of the cab had been compelled to pay a sum of £250 in redemption of that cab.
I say at once that I am merely quoting from a newspaper report which would be a summary and that there may be relevant circumstances that we do not know about. But at least I have checked up the powers. There is no doubt whatever that when the solicitor, protesting, said that they could not only confiscate the taxicab, but that they could confiscate a ship worth £30,000, or for that matter £3 million, merely because it had carried contraband without


the knowledge of the captain, he was right and correct under the old law and this Bill.
I refer the Financial Secretary to Clause 277 of the Bill, which enumerates these powers in the fullest possible detail. It says:
Without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, where any thing has become liable to forfeiture under the customs or excise Acts—
(a) any ship, aircraft, vehicle, animal, container (including any article of passengers' baggage) or other thing whatsoever which has been used for the carriage, handling, deposit or concealment of the thing so liable to forfeiture, either at a time when it was so liable or for the purposes of the commission of the offence for which it later became so liable; and
(b) any other thing mixed, packed or found with the thing so liable,…
shall also be liable to forfeiture.
If a person brings over a contraband diamond in a huge and otherwise legal crown and conveys it in a car and runs it on board a ship, or indeed if a person brings it in the train and runs it on the Dunkirk ferry, then under this Clause one could confiscate the ship, the car or the train, the rails, the crown, the diamond and the trunk that it is in under the strict interpretation of this Clause. If the diamond was in someone's pocket, one could confiscate the trousers and possibly the wearer.
If I were making a purely academic point, if I were saying that this very wide power has existed for years but was not able to say that it had ever been exercised, people might say, "Well, after all. What is there in it? They do not do these things." But here we have had in these last few days a very clear account of an exercise of this exceedingly arbitrary power to the detriment of one of Her Majesty's subjects without, so far as we are informed, any fault on his part except a lack of knowledge or a lack of care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church referred to something similar in the early stages of the Bill. I say sincerely to the Financial Secretary, knowing his interest in these matters, that I believe that if he was not sitting on the Treasury Bench and if he had read this Clause, he would say that it was dreadful. We will take Clause 4, which says—and I will abbreviate it:
Any act or thing required or authorised by or under any enactment to be done by the

Commissioners or any of them … or by a secretary or assistant secretary … or by any other person authorised generally….
Then I come to subsection (2):
Any person, whether an officer or not, engaged by the orders or with the concurrence of the Commissioners (whether previously or subsequently expressed) in the performance of any act or duty relating to an assigned matter …
I pause here for a moment because it is getting complicated. In other words, that means any person appointed by the Commissioners, whether subsequently or not. As I read it, if I happen to get to know something about smuggling and I either collect the whisky myself or find out where it is and tell the Commissioners, a Commissioner can say, "We will appoint you for the purpose of this matter as a Customs officer and date the appointment back to before you found the whisky. Anything you do is legal and anything done against you becomes illegal."
The Clause continues:
…by or with an officer, shall be deemed to be the proper officer by or with whom that act or duty is to be performed….
If I resented the mild interruption of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) and we came to fisticuffs on our way home, the Home Secretary could say to the hon. Member, "Look here. I appoint you a police officer for the purpose of this matter." To say the least of it, that would be most unfair to me, unless I had been more violent than is my wont.
If the Home Secretary looks at Clause 10 he will see that:
Any person who—

(a) obstructs, hinders, molests or assaults any person duly engaged in the performance of any duty…or does anything which impedes or is calculated to impede the carrying out of any search … or rescues, damages or destroys any thing so liable to forfeiture … or prevents the detention of any person by a person duly engaged or acting as aforesaid…"
In other words, we can take the matter one step further. One can appoint an accomplice in this as a Customs officer ad hoc and date his appointment back to the commencement of it. He can act without uniform and known by us at that time not to be a Customs officer, but if I attempt to rescue a friend of mine who has been put under temporary arrest by him then I commit a serious crime, although I have no means of knowing that he ever


was a Customs officer, although I know that he is not a Customs officer and although his appointment may have been made the day after the offence occurred. I have read this Clause rather carefully. I know that it may be surprising to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that is the position. Who passed it, I do not know, but I think it was about 1822 when that power was originally adumbrated, and it has not been subject to Amendment since 1923.
Now I come—and I am sorry to take more than a few minutes at this hour of the night—to some of the matters that have been added recently. With my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), for whom I have a profound respect, I am exceedingly reluctant to criticise anything that happened in the Kennet Committee, and, normally, I would not think of doing so, since the clear duties with which that Committee was charged with performing were admirably performed, but some of the Amendments put before the Committee appear to me to have added unintelligibility to incomprehensibility in a very remarkable degree.
There is a Clause about coastal shipping, which includes a statement as simple as anything I have read in a statute of this kind for some considerable time:
Subject to the next following section, any ship for the time being engaged in the trade of carrying goods coastwise between places in the United Kingdom shall for the purposes of this Act be a coasting ship.
That is a statement so simple that one wonders why it was ever inserted at all. Then, I miss out the next subsection, which is irrelevant, and quote:
The Commissioners may from time to time give directions as to what trade by water between places in the United Kingdom is or is not to be deemed to be carrying goods coastwise.
I suppose one can understand that, when one goes up a river it is abundantly clear that that is not coastwise shipping, but that coastwise shipping does mean going from one place to another.
Next, Clause 58 (1) says:
The Commissioners may, subject to such conditions and restrictions as they see fit to impose, permit a ship to carry goods coastwise notwithstanding that the ship is carrying goods brought therein from some place outside the United Kingdom and not yet entered on importation.

I need not worry very much about that. A ship comes from outside, and it becomes a coastwise ship, and one can understand that, but the next sentence is a little alarming:
Provided that a ship so permitted to carry goods coastwise shall not for the purposes this Act be a coasting ship.
I thought that was beginning to get a little complex, but, if the Parliamentary Secretary will read the variety of permits the Commissioners may give and the exceptions they can make in the next Clause or two, he will realise that I have nowhere near exhausted them.
Finally, we come to Clause 61, which is followed by two and a half pages of regulations concerning coastwise shipping and the unloading of goods, and I am not trying to make the quite extraordinary points that are available to be made here, such as that it is a criminal offence to deal with goods except in exact accord with the terms of the licence of the Commissioners, and that no provisions are made regarding storms and tempests. You commit an offence if you do not get your ship to port; to port you must get.
Clause 61 says:
The Commissioners may make regulations as to the carriage of goods coastwise—
(a) regulating the loading and unloading and the making waterborne for loading of goods;
(b) requiring the keeping and production by the master of a coasting ship of such record of the cargo carried in that ship as may be prescribed by the regulations."
Then follow, the words—
If any person contravenes.…
In effect, we find that the Bill defines coastwise shipping, then says when it is not coastwise shipping, specifies when a ship is and is not a coastwise ship, when it is or is not a partly coastwise ship and partly a riverborne ship, and gives power to make regulations to mix up the whole darn thing, and I would submit that that sort of circumlocution does not help towards clarity and lucidity or in any other way.
Hon. Members opposite have made comments about the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, and I interjected to suggest that one hon. Gentleman had not understood the argument of my hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Gentleman seemed to resent the suggestion, but went


on to make it quite clear that I was right in his next few sentences.
Clause 133 of this Bill gives an allowance to brewers for wastage of 6 per cent. It is perfectly simple and clear, and I see that the Financial Secretary is nodding his head, indicating that we have reached a point at which we have developed at any rate temporary agreement. The point made by my hon. and learned Friend was that methods of brewing have improved recently, even though that fact does not bring any great joy to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. H. Hudson). The plain fact is that there is no wastage. It is rather relevant to consider in this connection the amount of wastage allowed by the brewers to the tenants. I think I am correct in saying that they do not allow any at all.

Mr. Bing: So that the record may be straight, may I point out that it is practice of the brewers to charge the tenants for rather more than they send to them on the theory that no glass can ever be filled right to the top and that some of the overspill may be used again?

Mr. Peter Remnant: I cannot, of course, accept the comment of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that the brewers charge for more than they deliver, though I do agree with him that casks vary in content. The older a cask becomes, the greater the amount of its contents. The wastage occurs in the brewing before the beer is dispatched.

Mr. Hale: But how does the wastage occur? I come from Burton-on-Trent and—

Mr. Remnant: As the hon. Gentleman knows some fermentation takes place and that means the splitting up of the sugar. One of the constituents is carbonic acid gas which, I believe, floats away.

Mr. Hale: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us the fullest information. No one would wish to be committed to a theory which is inaccurate, but, even so, 6 per cent. seems a very remarkable figure. I was interested in the barrelage theory. I was always under the impression that if I bought a nine gallon barrel of beer I got nine gallons of beer.

Mr. Remnant: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he were to ask me to supply him with a nine gallon barrel I would take every precaution to see that he gets the full quantity.

Mr. Hale: I do not want to pursue this matter, because we are not greatly advancing the important arguments I have enunciated. I do not think tenants of brewery houses would be satisfied by being told that I was going to get a full nine gallon barrel on one occasion only. When the hon. Gentleman intervened and said there was no wastage in pouring beer into a glass I thought it was a great tribute to the accuracy, poise and good health of licensed victuallers who are able to carry out this delicate operation with so little loss.
However, I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman who intervened did not follow my hon. and learned Friend in what I thought was a much more important side of the very admirable argument he put regarding the question of the strength of the alcoholic content which, apparently, is never declared at all. Whether it be true or not that the tenants are charged a little more in quantity, the hon. Gentleman will surely not deny that they charge a little more in price, and that the public could buy the same beer in the free houses or clubs next door which rent their premises from the same brewery.

Mr. Remnant: Surely the hon. Gentleman wishes to be perfectly fair and will realise that in a sale to what is known as a tied tenant the seller of the beer has certain liabilities in the way of repairs which he has not to a free tenant or a club.

Mr. Hale: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; we have not heard that point put before. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch and I will be most happy to meet the hon. Gentleman opposite to discuss this matter, because my hon. and learned Friend had a tied houses Bill which would have relieved the brewers entirely of this dreadful responsibility. We can at any rate form a temporary coalition with the hon. Gentleman opposite over this one matter, and I hope we shall make a substantial advance.
I thought my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch was a little


unjust at one point when he suggested that the giving of this money to the brewers was perhaps an unexpected act on the part of Her Majesty's Government and that it had become a little more inappropriate at a time when we were threatened with the revision and indeed the cancellation of the provisions for the control of public houses in the new towns. I do not think it is fair to criticise them in that way. I think one can see the position in which the Government were placed, having started up by giving £22 million to their pals in the City it was almost impossible for them to refuse the reasonable blandishments of the brewers who have been their most consistent supporters.

Mr. Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. Speaking as one who represents a constituency in which a new town is to be established let me inform him, if he does not already know it, that the most strenuous opposition to the nationalisation of public houses in new towns came from the residents of those towns. There is no question at all, as far as I am aware, of any—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how this has any relevance to the debate at all.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry. I am afraid that it was my irrelevance that tempted the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) into irrelevance, and to inaccuracy to a certain extent. If I could follow I would point out the distance of Carlisle from the place to which he refers and the difficulties of people who have to rely for their information on propaganda. I am very anxious to facilitate Government business and not to take undue time over this matter. I am sorry that the House has been forced into this situation. This is an exceedingly important Measure, which covers a very wide subject. Some of the Acts affected by this Bill have been in force for over 100 years. Surely the time has come for the House to be given ample opportunity of discussing this matter at length and to consider these things Clause by Clause.
The homework for last night was over 1,000 pages of statutory reading and we are expected to co-operate with the Government by seeing that these things are disposed of by 10 o'clock. It would have been better to have had shorter holidays at Christmas and to have adopted the

old method of considering these matters in detail and not risk having a position where, as we were told in the courts yesterday, a Clause we passed some years ago is so meaningless that judicial effect cannot be given to it.
That is the kind of tragedy we may have to face if the Front Bench opposite try to force through too much legislation. We are anxious to co-operate. I think we have done so today in disposing of so many Measures in so short a time. Assuming that this Bill gets a Second Reading tonight, never in the history of Parliament have the Opposition cooperated to such an extent to pass so many Bills in so little time. In two Bills alone there are 400,000 words, many of them words put in a juxtaposition which gives them an extraordinary complexity and places a heavy burden on those of us who are anxious to discharge our duties to our constituents by giving reasonable consideration to every Measure that is brought before us.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With the leave of the House, I should like to deal with a number of matters raised in this interesting and sometimes lively debate. It is perhaps appropriate that this has been a debate of a literary character with literary quotations of wide variety both of point and indeed of relevance, because the whole subject of Customs is intertwined historically with our literature from the days when Geoffrey Chaucer was Collector of the Port of London through the days, to which hon. Members have already referred, when the late Mr. Burns was an official of the Customs. Indeed, reports of his conduct of his duties in that capacity exist at Customs and Excise Headquarters in London to this day.
Quite a number of the points raised are quite clearly points which will have to be examined during the further stages which this Bill will go through if it receives a Second Reading. I would not wish to give the impression that because I do not on this evening actually deal with a particular point, its importance has been overlooked. On the contrary, all that has been said in this debate will be carefully considered, and if the House is good enough to adopt the suggestion which the Government will make in the Motion that is on the Order Paper, all these points will have the opportunity of being


analysed during the two Committee stages —in accordance with the ruling which was given from the Chair earlier—during a discussion by the Joint Select Committee and then in the course of the Committee stage in this House. That will give what, in the view of the Government, and I think of the House, is a proper and necessary opportunity for the consideration of a Measure of this size and complexity.

Mr. Hale: I seem to recall that the 1933 Measure came back for the Report stage only. The Committee stage was deemed to have been taken—I beg pardon; apparently an undertaking was given during my absence from the Chamber.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think there was a ruling from the Chair that that would be the procedure. I do not think we need concern ourselves further with that difficulty.
There is a general comment that I should like to make before seeking to reply to particular matters. A good many speeches have been made, in particular the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), making criticisms of particular aspects of the Customs and Excise law on their merits. Those sort of criticisms are, in my respectful submission, not wholly relevant to this Measure. What this Measure seeks to do, as I said in moving the Second Reading, is, with only such Amendments as are necessary to produce a coherent and logical whole, to re-enact the corpus of the Customs and Excise law as it exists.
That does not and need not mean that the process will stop there, but I think that most hon. Members who have considered this matter will agree with me that it is really impossible to go into a proper consideration of the powers, rights and duties of Customs and Excise unless and until the existing body of law has been got into a comprehensive and comprehensible form. That is the basis on which so far the various steps which have been taken in connection with this Bill by various hon. Members on both sides of the House have proceeded.
I need only remind the house that when the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), appointed the Kennet Committee which, as I pointed out, examined this Bill last year, the terms of

reference given to that Committee expressly instructed them to say in particular whether the Committee consider that any alterations of law are of such importance that they ought in their opinion to be separately enacted by Parliament. Therefore, the whole Measure has so far proceeded on the basis that it was not the function of this Bill to make large, though quite possible meritorious, Amendments in the existing law.
The purpose of this Bill was, on the basis of the existing law, to produce a comprehensible and comprehensive whole which might itself well be a foundation for particular and subsequent Amendments dealing points of merit. Therefore, if I do not deal with all the criticisms of precise provisions which have been made, and with some of which I am bound to say I have great personal sympathy, it implies no discourtesy to the hon. Member who has made them. It is still less a failure to appreciate a point of the criticisms, but it is based on my view, rightly or wrongly, that it is not the function of this Bill to put such matters right.
I noticed with great interest what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was on the bench beside me during the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I can tell him that my hon. and learned Friend heard what he said and, on his behalf as well as my own, I undertake that both the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be given full consideration. He will not expect me, as a former lawyer, to intrude upon his Department's activities in too great detail at this stage. I think he would resent it if I did. But I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my hon. and learned Friend is aware of the points he made and that they will be considered during the remaining stages of the Bill.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman asked leave to speak in place of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General—and I think the House generally gave him leave to speak under the impression that he would deal with the points which would normally be dealt with by the Solicitor-General, whom we were led to expect would speak. I think he should make some effort to deal with these important matters.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, no Member speaking from this bench on the points of complexity raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill would, if he thought there was a point in them worth considering, give any other answer than that those points would be considered. Really, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be manufacturing a grievance with a remarkable shortage of material when, in answer to his right hon. and learned Friend, I gave the assurance I have just given.
Subject to the general qualifications of our approach to this Bill, I will deal with some of the points made in the course of this debate. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens), that what he described as his points of detail will be very appropriately considered during the later stages of the Bill.
I listened, as I always do, to the extremely interesting comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing). He has apparently given profound study to the activities of the brewing industry and I am sure the House, regardless of party, gets a great deal of pleasure on his retailing to us the results of his researches into that interesting form of activity. Much of what he said related to the habitual criticisms— which with his habitual adroitness, he succeeds in making quite a number—of the industry and of the Bill.
I thought the main line of his criticism was on Clause 134 of the Bill—the famous 6 per cent. I can only say two things with regard to that. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of this particular solution, it is a re-enactment substantially of the existing position, which is in accordance with the general theme of the Bill. I can assure him, particularly in the present state of this country, that there is no desire on the part of either the Customs authorities or Her Majesty's Government that there should be a leak either in the casks of beer or in the Revenue.
But changes in the basis of assessment of a tax, which is really what he is asking for, are not measures of the kind which appropriately come within this Bill. I was sorry that he spoilt his very interesting analysis by implications of motives

which, if they have any validity, must be implications not only against Her Majesty's present advisers but all those of earlier days, and of all political parties, who have gone into this Bill and this subject in particular. After he had brought so much technical knowledge to bear, I am sorry that he depreciated the value of it to some extent by suggestions of motive which I do not think we can seriously contemplate.

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with two equally important questions? The first is that of the declaration of the original gravity of the beer, which is a matter which can be affected by a very simple alteration in the Bill; and the second is a question on which I think the whole industry would like some guidance —whether the filtering back of slops is an offence under Clause 163 or not.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is not a function of a Minister at this Box to give a ruling as to what does or does not constitute a criminal offence. That is a function of the courts of law. On the other point, the assessment of gravity, what this Bill seeks to do is to re-enact the existing practice. The Sikes hydrometer process has become obsolete in the course of time and the method laid down in the Bill is, I understand, the existing method, and once again, therefore, is in accordance with the general principles of the Bill.
I am not prepared on this occasion to concede that even if other methods were better they would be appropriate to the Bill, but I shall be happy on any occasion when the hon. and learned Gentleman likes to submit details, to consider, with a view to subsequent Measures, whether there is anything in the proposal which he makes. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, these are highly technical questions. The method used in this country is an old one. It may well not be as good as those used in some other countries, but I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to say that when we are seeking to do what we are doing in the Bill, then to alter the method used for another method does not come within the general intentions. I hope he will accept the view that when we say that we are not motivated by some obscure deal with somebody else outside.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman has been very kind in giving way and I do not wish to intervene too often. Apparently I did not make the point clear, however. I am asking the hon. Gentleman if he would be kind enough to deal with this point, which concerns the declaration of the original gravity of the beer. Clause 163 makes it an offence to dilute the beer, but if the original gravity is not declared it is impossible to know whether the beer has been diluted or not. It would be quite simple to insert a provision making it compulsory to declare the gravity upon which duty was paid. Were this done, it would be possible to test whether or not Clause 163 had been infringed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry to weary the House on this point, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must appreciate that a change of that nature, be it good or be it bad—and I am not concerned about that at the moment—would vitiate the whole approach to the Bill. One is dealing with a large number of people who quite genuinely hold ideas which might well constitute improvements in the existing law if enacted over the whole of the vast scope of this legislation, but if we allow ourselves to be tempted into making what might well be improvements in that direction we shall simply get into the state of confusion which it is the purpose of this Measure to avoid.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious that the whole body of this law should be put into a position in which it can subsequently be effectively reviewed, he will appreciate that he will best serve that end by seeing that this Measure reaches the Statute Book and, if I may use a colloquialism, clears the decks for subsequent examination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) raised a number of points which will certainly be looked into. There is one to which I should like to refer specifically, if I do not go out of order in doing so. It was a point raised by both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross)—the application of the Bill to gift parcels. The Bill will make no difference in the present regulations about the admission of gift parcels. Perhaps, as criticism has been made, I may say a word upon that issue.
It is impracticable to give a general concession in favour of gift parcels. It is obviously quite impossible to identify a particular parcel as being a genuine gift or not. Hon. Members will be perfectly familiar with various schemes which have been made by various adroit and agile people in foreign countries to arrange on terms of sale to send bogus gift parcels, and the difficulty is that any general concession will simply open the door to that sort of abuse by which people of substantial means would be enabled to bypass restrictions which fall upon less fortunate mortals. That is the difficulty.
But there are concessions which are insufficiently known, and which, perhaps, the House may be interested to hear. Parcels up to 22 lb. containing food, well-used clothing, medical supplies and/or soap are, under the present regulations, admitted free. So are parcels from the Forces abroad, not containing tobacco, spirits, or scent, up to 10s. in value. These are two substantial attempts to meet the very real point which both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite have in mind, and which, I will tell them frankly, is a matter of whose merits we also are aware.
I shall not follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, into his controversy with his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), on medical issues, on which I am certainly not qualified to follow, but I will answer the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, when he asked me what was "exhausted tea." Fortunately, "exhausted tea" is defined in Clause 229 (3). The expression "exhausted tea" means
…tea which has been deprived of its proper quality, strength or virtue by steeping, infusion, decoction or other means.
I hope that that makes the matter as abundantly clear, to the hon. Member as it is intended to make it to the readers of the Measure. "Exhausted tea" is so defined.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North, expressed his own views on a somewhat controversial subject with his usual force and sincerity. I am bound to say that the vigour with which he put them did constitute an extraordinarily good advertisement for the views which he expressed—

Mr. J. Hudson: Unexhausted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Unexhausted. I am much obliged. He will not expect me, in the context of what I have said already, to follow up his suggestion that licences for the sale of alcohol should be increased in price. That, of course, would be a measure of taxation, and, as such, quite inappropriate to this, Bill, whatever its value in other directions may be.
There are, of course, as I said, a number indubitably of other points in this long, complicated Bill, but the procedure which we do suggest for its further consideration and analysis will, in my submission, give to the House a proper opportunity to perform that duty to its constituents, to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred—and which, I am bound to say, he always exercises—of analysis of its provisions. I hope, therefore, in view of the general good will expressed for the general purpose of this Bill from all quarters of the House, that the House will now be prepared to give the Bill its Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Resolved:
That it is expedient that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to customs and excise, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any remuneration and allowances payable to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

9.10 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: Are we to have a word of explanation about this Resolution? There are four paragraphs to it. I believe it is purely

technical and that it does not impose any substantial charge, but, if I may respectfully say so, I think we are entitled to a word of explanation to reassure us that that is the case.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I do not know whether or not the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to this Resolution, which contains only one paragraph and is to be found on page 829 of the Order Paper, or to the Resolution containing four paragraphs which is to be found on page 833 of the Order Paper.

The Chairman: We have not come to that yet.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for an explanation, which, I think, is related to something we have not yet reached.

Sir F. Soskice: I meant the other Resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir Charles MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Customs and Excise

9.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to customs and excise—
(1) the duties of customs and the rates thereof chargeable on imported goods—
(a) if entry is made thereof, except where the entry or, in the case of an entry by bill of sight, the perfect entry is for warehousing, shall be those in force with respect to such goods at the time of the delivery of the entry;
(b) it no entry is made thereof, shall be those in force with respect to such goods at the time of their importation;
and, in the case of goods brought by sea, the time of importation of the goods shall be deemed to be the time when the ship carrying them comes within the limits of a port within the meaning of the said Act of the present session;


(2) where the original gravity of any worts in which fermentation has commenced has been determined, in the manner provided by the said Act of the present session, for the purpose of charging the excise duty in respect of beer, any deduction allowable under that Act from the original gravity so determined shall not have effect so as to reduce the original gravity by reference to which the duty is charged below the actual gravity of the worts as ascertained by the proper officer in accordance with that Act;
(3) the reduction in the drawback payable on tobacco which, by virtue of section one of the Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863, as amended by the Finance Act, 1904, is directed to be made in respect of inorganic matter contained in the tobacco shall be deemed always to have been a reduction of an amount bearing the same proportion to the amount of drawback otherwise payable as the proportion by which the weight of the tobacco, after the removal of the moisture and any inorganic matter contained therein, would be less than seventy-eight per cent. of its weight after the removal of the moisture but before the removal of inorganic matter;
(4) where, in pursuance of any power conferred by the said Act of the present Session, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have during any period refused to allow the removal or sending out for home use of goods of any class or description, then, in the case of any such goods which are removed or sent out for home use after the end of that period, the duties of customs or excise and the rates thereof chargeable on those goods shall be those in force at the date of the removal or sending out of the goods.
I think this is the Resolution on which the right hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), desires an explanation. This Resolution contains four paragraphs, which relates to those Clauses of the Bill, which I will specify, requiring a Ways and Means Resolution. The first, which is somewhat lengthy, and which I do not think I need read because it is available on the Order Paper, is required in connection with Clauses 34 (2, a), 34 (2, c) and 79 (2, a) of the Bill. Their real substance is to regulate the point at which in the importation of goods the rates of duty effective at that particular moment become chargeable. As the provisions of the Clauses I have mentioned might impose a charge, this Resolution is necessary in order to authorise those Clauses.
The second paragraph, which relates to the original gravity of any worts—and I should explain to those hon. Members who, unlike the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), are unfamiliar with brewing technique, worts are brewed beer—provides for the method of ascertainment of gravity. Because the application of the method in the Clause must impose a charge, it is necessary to have this Resolution. The particular Clause with which it is concerned is Clause 171 (3).
The third one relates to the amount of drawback payable on tobacco. An hon. Member during the Second Reading debate referred to the difficulty which always arises in connection with tobacco, namely, that it contains moisture which affects the weight. In this Resolution it arises in connection with Clause 183 (5) in which provision is made to reduce the drawback payable on tobacco proportionately if the organic contents of the tobacco is less than 78 per cent.; and because, here again, the question of a charge arises, it is necessary to regularise the position under that Clause by this Resolution.
Finally—and, no doubt, the Committee will be relieved to hear that word—there is a Resolution which relates to a not unimportant Clause of the Bill—Clause 261. That Clause deals with the position when the rates of duty change and the goods in question have been held back from entry into the country. The kind of situation that is envisaged is in a period immediately before a Budget when, rightly or wrongly, it is anticipated that changes in duty may take place, and to prevent forestalling, a certain amount of goods are held back. Because, once again, a charge may be involved under the provisions of the Clause in question, it is necessary for us to have this Resolution. I hope that with that explanation, the Committee will be prepared to give us the Resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MINERS' WELFARE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

9.19 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is an important but, I believe, a non-controversial Bill. Indeed, I think that it is true to say that it is a doubly-agreed Bill in a sense that it relates to and enables to a considerable extent a plan to be put into operation which has been agreed between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, and, secondly, because it was largely prepared by the previous Government and is now being introduced by this one.
It was in 1950 that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) suggested that there should be talks between the National Coal Board and the N.U.M. on the future of welfare in the industry. Last summer—I think that it was in July—as a result of those talks, there was signed a formal memorandum of agreement between the Coal Board and the N.U.M. with regard to the future welfare arrangements in the coal mining industry. Copies of this agreement have been placed in the Library. The Bill really deals with this agreement and particularly the enabling arrangement which it is necessary for Parliament to adopt if this scheme is to be carried out.
Hon. Members will think it all very satisfactory that there has been so much agreement, but there is an element of sadness in the matter because the plan involves bringing the old Miners' Welfare Commission to an end. Everybody will agree—particularly mining hon. Members—that this has been one of the most successful and popular organisations in the industry during the last 30 years.
Since it is necessary for the understanding of the Bill, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words it is due to it—about the Miners' Welfare Commission and its work. Many hon. Members here know infinitely more about it than I do and have seen it more in practice than I have. My connection with it was rather fleeting when I was Secretary for Mines before the war—sometimes a shower, in very nice surroundings, after going down a pit, sometimes reflecting

what a good form of recreation it was to have a charming bowling green near the pithead, and later, admiring the work done by rehabilitation centres.
When Sir Robert Horne introduced the original Bill in 1920 he described it as an experiment, and it certainly was an experiment. It was an innovation to run welfare on an industry basis, and I believe it is still unique. The Commission grew in a rather slow and experimental way, as one would perhaps expect in this country. It is a little surprising to those of the younger generation, who must think of the Miners' Welfare Commission to a considerable extent in relation to its great work of pithead baths, to realise that at the beginning the Commission were concerned much more with what we now regard as social welfare and that pithead baths did not figure at all largely at that time.
The big change came in 1926 with the Act which made it a statutory obligation on the commission to provide, where reasonably possible, for taking baths and drying clothes—in the almost historic words of that Act. When I was looking up this matter I could not help being somewhat amused, as the House may be, to find in HANSARD the following extract from the speech of Colonel Lane Fox:
Part III deals with the question of pithead baths, and provides for the setting up of those baths. [Laughter.] "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1926; Vol. 197, c. 394.]
That was how the House received it at that time, and yet, as many hon. Members know, the pithead baths movement has made a kind of revolution in the mining industry in this country. It is curious to reflect that in those early days there were fears that men might catch cold when going home—

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Or lumbago.

Mr. Lloyd: —or lumbago, and yet as time went on some of the very pits which had rejected the pithead baths in the early days came clamouring to the Miners' Welfare Commission to have them installed. Hon. Members will know better than I do that not only the men but also the women had a great deal to do with this matter, appreciating what a difference pithead baths could make to a miner's home. I need not go into


details because the House knows this very well. During the war years the Commission did great work with regard to canteens and rehabilitation centres.
It is quite clear that a big change like nationalisation was bound in the end to lead to some consequential changes in the welfare arrangements in the industry. It could be argued that the whole change ought to have been made at the time of the nationalisation statute, but I do not agree. I take the view that the late Government were right in this respect in that they made that great change and gave the welfare arrangements time to be considered and, so to speak, to settle down.
In 1948 a Joint Welfare Council was formed between the Miners' Welfare Commission and the Coal Board. The Coal Board took over the maintenance of the pithead baths and indeed the Board spent more money on welfare than was due from the statutory levy. The way was thus cleared for discussions to take place between the N.U.M. and the Coal Board, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, which led to the memorandum of agreement.
This Bill, I would remind the House, is one which deals with the necessary legal mechanics to enable the memorandum of agreement to take effect because it is that agreement which is really the future charter of welfare in the mining industry. Broadly speaking, the scheme divides welfare into two classes, namely, colliery welfare and social welfare, and provides for them to be dealt with in two different ways. Colliery welfare, pithead baths, canteens, medical treatment and cycle stores will become the responsibility of the Coal Board as a normal function of colliery management and there are undertakings that there should be full joint consultation at all levels under the consultation machinery.
Social welfare includes such matters as recreation grounds and centres, youth activities, convalescent homes, scholarships, and so on, and this is to be the responsibility of a newly constituted body to be called the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. There will be five representatives of the National Coal Board, five of the National Union of Mineworkers, one of the colliery overmen, deputies and shotfirers and one of the

managerial grade. In the first instance, the Coal Board will provide £1 million for this organisation. There are provisions for further arrangements later.
To a very large extent this Bill deals with the legal details of the apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the Miners' Welfare Commission between the Coal Board and this new joint organisation. To the layman some of these provisions may seem complicated—they do to me who am not a lawyer—but it is hardly surprising when one remembers that the Miners' Welfare Commission, during 30 years, were provided with some £30 million for nearly 3,000 welfare schemes, largely in the form of local trusts, a good many of which have to be determined under the new scheme.
Before I conclude I think the House would wish me, since we have this opportunity, to pay what might be called a last salute to the Miners' Welfare Commission and to express our appreciation of the men who worked for and are members of it and for what they did. I think I ought to say a special word for the men who represented it as chairmen—remember, all this work was entirely voluntary and honorary—and the great amount of time they put in. Chairman for the longest time was Sir Frederick Sykes who, I know, wanted to be in the House tonight. Lord Chelmsford was another very famous Chairman. I think the late Herbert Smith said that he only knew two good Lords and Lord Chelmsford was one of them.
Then there was Lord Citrine; I suppose he was the other good Lord, except that he came rather later. He told me that in his view the Miners' Welfare Commission had produced conditions of welfare in the mining industry which are better than those in any other country in the world. I must also add a tribute, in conclusion, to the very much loved figure of Professor Edgar Collis, who did such good work in the mining industry.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Harold Neal: In following the right hon. Gentleman who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill in such felicitious terms, I wish to assure the House that I have an acute consciousness of the pressure on the Parliamentary time-table and will not detain the House as long as I intended.
First, I wish to congratulate the Minister on the very agreeable legislation that is emanating from his Department. He has made a very good beginning, and we on this side of the House hope he will continue to maintain the reputation he has so early achieved. He appears to be able to hand out bouquets when his colleagues are throwing brick-bats. At a time when his Ministerial colleagues are provoking on themselves a welter of criticism, he brings before us Bills which excite no hostile sentiments in any part of the House. This is the second Bill within the last few weeks which the right hon. Gentleman has sponsored and which I have had the pleasure to welcome on behalf of the Opposition.
As an ex-miner, there is no subject to which I am more emotionally drawn than that of miners' welfare, and I am profoundly pleased to be present to witness this stage of its advancement. It is one of those Bills to which the newspapers pay very scanty regard, but it is of tremendous importance to the mining communities, and can make a valuable contribution to the production of coal in this country.
The Bill, as the Minister rightly says, is the embodiment of an agreement between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. The credit for having encouraged the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to enter into discussions about the future of welfare in the mining industry in the light of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act belongs to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker).
The changes envisaged in this Bill are necessary to give legal effect to that agreement between those two bodies. I might be permitted to say in parenthesis that this agreement was signed in July last year at a time when Lord Hyndley was Chairman of the National Coal Board. As everyone knows, he cultivated the good will and respect of everybody in the coal industry, and it was very gratifying to him that one of his last Acts as Chairman of the National Coal Board was to sign a document which was to plan the future welfare of the men engaged in the coal industry.
The Miners' Welfare Fund was instituted by the Mining Industry Act, 1920, arising out of the recommendations of the Sankey Commission in the previous year.

So far as I am aware, it was the first and only statutory provision for the social welfare of workers in any industry. The conditions under which miners live and work, the isolation of many of the colliery villages, call for special recognition of the welfare needs of miners and their families.
Broadly speaking, the Miners' Welfare Fund was raised by an output levy of a halfpenny to one penny per ton—it varied over the years—which was subsequently supplemented by a royalties levy of 1s. in the pound, which was earmarked specially for the erection of pithead baths. As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, the Fund was first managed by the Miners' Welfare Committee and subsequently by the Miners' Welfare Commission.
The output levy I have just mentioned terminated at the end of 1951, but the royalties levy remains. The Bill we are now discussing clears the way for future action in, first, ensuring the cessation of the royalties levy and the dissolution of the Commission. Regarding the former, I regard it as a very sensible proposal. A levy is, under a nationalised industry, no longer necessary. It is coincidental that this royalties levy was begun under a Conservative Government and it will end under a Conservative Government.
I should like to add a word of commendation, in respect of the Commission, to those expressed by the Minister concerning the public-spirited men and women who have pioneered and perfected the excellent arrangements which have been such a boon to the mining communities in this country. One of the happiest features of this Measure is the division of welfare functions. Colliery welfare—such as pithead baths, canteens and medical centres, now become the responsibility of the National Coal Board. But these are obligations that are accepted by all good employers. It is perfectly proper that the National Coal Board should provide for its employees washing facilities, meals' services and medical attention as do employers in other industries.
It is not generally known that until a short time ago miners in many coalfields had to pay as much as 1s. per week for the privilege of washing at the pithead baths. In addition, they had to provide their own towel and soap. The provision of pithead baths is the greatest social


advantage that miners have secured in my lifetime. We miners were often looked down upon by other sections of the community because we had black faces and dirty hands. Only the miner knows how unwelcome he is as a passenger on a bus with his grimy face and his clothes soaked in perspiration.
In these enlightened days that state of affairs ought not to be permitted. The erection of pithead baths should become a high priority. A good deal has been done we know, but much remains to he done. In the Report of the Commission for 1950 it is stated that 413 baths have been erected, providing washing facilities for 479,000 men. There is a difference between the number of lockers provided and the number of men provided for, but the Report says that there is provision for 479,000 men. Therefore, some 300,000 men still remain to be provided with this elementary amenity of bathing facilities in order to improve their health and their social standing.
In the past money grants for the erection of these baths were made according to the output of the areas. Now, the responsibility belongs to the National Coal Board and the levy has been abolished. Grants can be made to the districts not on the basis of output in the areas but on the basis of the number of men for whom washing provision is not made. It should now be possible to ensure that the building programme is developed on a basis of need. Areas like Ayrshire and coalfields which are being newly exploited should be able to have special attention as a result of this Bill.
Under this Measure social welfare, such as institutes, recreation grounds, scholarships and so on, should not suffer because the name of the organisation controlling that section of welfare activity has been changed. Composed as it is of both sides of industry, it should find no difficulty in continuing the task previously discharged so excellently by the Commission.
Welfare activities other than colliery welfare are now to be described as social welfare. In the past social welfare took many forms according to the wishes of the areas. Some districts provided homes for aged miners. Others provided convalescent homes and the like. Derbyshire, the coalfield which I represent, in addition to having an excellent convalescent

home, boasts the possession of two holiday camps. One is situated on the east coast and it has its own modern theatre and excellent provision for sporting and recreational facilities. It accepts 1,000 miners with their wives and children every week during the holiday season.
Adjoining this splendid holiday camp is a paraplegic centre, where victims of this dread disease of the industry can enjoy holidays by the seashore which might otherwise be denied them. I would commend to the Minister these experiments in the hope that these facilities will be provided in other coalfields. In my opinion, nothing is more calculated to improve the morale of the coalfields than happy annual holidays.
I have one fear about this Bill, as it is now presented to us. I do not believe that it is possible for this new Social Welfare Organisation to provide sufficient money to enable the districts to copy the examples which I have quoted. My fear is that the National Coal Board is the ultimate judge of what is necessary in this field, and I can visualise that, when some subsequent application is made by the Social Welfare Organisation, the Coal Board will say: "We can only provide you such sums of money for social welfare as the economic results in the industry will justify." I should be very glad indeed if the fears which I am now expressing should prove to have been unfounded.
It may be that during the Committee stage some of my hon. Friends will require assurances about some of the ill-defined Clauses of this Bill. Generally, however, we accord it our blessing, because it will promote the welfare of the communities upon whom, above all others, we depend for our economic survival. I hope this welfare Bill is a portent that miners will fare well under this Government.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. S. Schofield: In rising to address the House for the first time, I feel that I must pay my respects to my predecessor, the late Frank Collindridge, who, I think every hon. Member will agree, was respected by all and was recognised as a good Parliamentarian. In fact, it would be most difficult for me to describe in words the love and affection which the people of his constituency felt for him arising out of the services he rendered to them during the


13 years in which he represented them in this House. It was indeed a tragic blow to all who knew him when he died, and, now that fate has ordained that I must follow him, I shall endeavour to gain the same respect from Members of all parties and from all those people whom I am proud to represent.
I have given a very careful perusal to this Bill, and, in my opinion, provided that it is acted upon by those who will administer it in the interests of the miners, it will turn out to be beneficial both to employers and employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) has stated that he is an ex-miner. Less than five months ago I was helping to produce coal; I was actually producing coal. I have worked as a miner for the past 20 years, and I have seen some very great changes.
I have seen the laying out of football and cricket fields, bowling greens, the building of institutes, pithead baths, canteens, and, last of all, bicycle store sheds. I remember the time when, as a young boy, going home from the colliery with my rather and brothers, in the days before pithead baths our clothes were in such a condition that we resembled men who had been sweeping chimneys. But things have changed, and changed for the better. The money spent on the installation of pithead baths was money well spent. I think statistics if taken would show that more recruitment is taking place in collieries where pithead baths are installed compared with collieries which have no baths.
Money was also spent on the provision of canteens. I will tell the House a little story relating to my own colliery which produced, approximately, 3,000 tons of coal a day. There was a lightning strike in the coalfield, an unconstitutional stoppage, and there were 20 contractors who were, shall I say, the instigators of this strike. They came to the pit with the intention of pulling out the men. But because it was possible for the men to go to the canteen, that pit worked on that particular day. Had there been no canteen in which to get their "snaps" as we call them that pit would have been out.
I know that the Miners' Welfare Committee of 1920—I am relating a little bit of history now—was the result of the Sankey Commission of 1919 which made certain recommendations. One of its

recommendations was a six-hour day, another was the nationalisation of the mines, and a third the provision of funds with which to create welfare for the men in the industry. Had the nationalisation of the mines been taken up by the Government of that time I feel quite certain that the debate that took place approximately a fortnight ago on the financial and economic situation would not have taken place at all, and I should not have had to go through the ordeal of sitting on the last row of benches from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Mr. Speaker did not know me and I did not catch his eye. I decided to pursue other avenues and it has turned out to be very successful.
I want to deal with the Bill as it is and with what I envisage from reading it. There is the division of responsibility for the coal industry welfare. I know that both sides of the industry, the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, have met to consider what the future welfare might be for those in the industry. Certain suggestions have been made and the Bill envisages those recommendations. It states there are to be two kinds of welfare, colliery welfare and social welfare.
I have touched briefly upon pithead baths. Prior to 1945, the miners of whom I was one, paid the full maintenance cost of the baths. From 1945 to 1947 we paid half the maintenance cost, but after the nationalisation of the mines the miners bore none of the cost at all. But that money was really well spent.
Other duties they were expected to perform included the provision and operation of cycle stores, bus shelters and similar amenities. Bus shelters are most important in my area because after men have come out of the bowels of the earth and have had their bath they do not want to stand around in all types of weather without any shelter. Money would be well spent on the provision of such shelters.
The introduction of industrial medical services and medical treatment centres at the colliery is an innovation. First, ordinary first-aid depots were provided and now the powers that be have decided that those should be enlarged and that the miners are entitled to better medical services than have been enjoyed in the past. I am quite certain that the introduction of these medical treatment centres will be


the means of saving life and limb and of insuring that injured men are treated as quickly as possible.
Another most important item is the provision of suitable and convenient housing accommodation for workers in the coal industry. I hope that the miners may, through the efforts of the N.U.M. and the Coal Board secure some priority for housing from the appropriate Government Department.
I remember that some years ago at the colliery where I was working the management asked me to try and find volunteers for a Saturday extended week. Crawling to the coal faces I was meeting with some success when I bumped into one young chap who did not seem to be looking after himself properly. I asked him what were the possibilities of his working on Saturdays. He related his history and told me why he could not work on a Saturday. He was a young married man in his early 30s and was living with his grandfather. His wife lives approximately 15 miles away with the two children and the only time at which he could meet them was on a Saturday and Sunday. As a result of that conversation I sought and was successful in having a house allocated to them. The country is now gaining 10 to 14 tons of coal a week as a result of that man working the extended Saturday.
I am grateful to hon. Members for giving me the best attention that a maiden speaker could have, and in conclusion I must say that I am quite satisfied that if those who administer the funds arising out of this Bill do so in the proper spirit the Bill will turn out to be beneficial both to the employer and the employee.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

9.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I should like to apologise most profoundly to hon. Gentlemen opposite who, I know, wish to speak and whom I know we wish to hear. Unfortunately, time is getting on, and it is a privilege which I have very long sought since I have been in this House, and with which hon. Gentlemen I know will sympathise, to have the opportunity of congratulating a maiden speaker. I have

been in this House now for nearly 10 years I have never had the chance before.
I am very happy indeed to have the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Schofield), who has spoken entirely in tune with the tone of the debate. He has refreshed the House with the personal experience he has brought to our deliberations and which I know we shall always be glad to receive from him. It is not often that we have an hon. Member with such practical and detailed knowledge of the trade about which he is speaking. I understand that the hon. Member's grandfather broke the flag on the pit when it was opened and that the hon. Member himself broke the N.C.B. flag on the same pit on vesting day. We are very pleased indeed to have his support for the Bill. I should like particularly to thank hon. Members who have spoken on this Bill for the reception which they have given.
This Bill does not involve a great change in practice. It is a change in procedure—a change which, as my right hon. Friend indicated, was necessitated or would in any event have been necessitated as a result of nationalisation, because the procedure of the Miners' Welfare Commission had outrun its course when nationalisation came into operation. What is now intended to be done is for this new organisation, jointly composed in equal numbers of the directors of the Coal Board on the one hand and the National Union of Mineworkers on the other hand, to take over the administration of the social welfare side in its entirety.
I should like to say something on that point in reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal), who expressed the fear that there might be insufficient money available for the social welfare work for the mining industry to be able to follow the admirable example in regard to social welfare which he has in his own neighbourhood at the Bolsover Colliery. I do not think he need have that anxiety. I think he has somewhat misconstrued the Bill, because it is not left in the last resort to the Coal Board to decide how much money there is to be available for this purpose. The decision is to be arrived at by the Social Welfare Organisation, which is equally


balanced, and if, for any reason, they should be unable to arrive at a decision because they are equally balanced, then it is to be settled by agreement between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers themselves.
Consequently, having regard to the terms of the agreement itself—and the agreement is quite specific as to what should be provided; namely, that there should be provided those necessary moneys for the reasonable and proper needs for the execution of social welfare —it is difficult to see how those two responsible bodies, working together for the same common object as they are, and imbued with the same spirit, should fail to provide such moneys as are reasonable and proper for the purpose.
Another point arose out of the hon. Gentleman's speech, to which I should like to make reference, namely, the question of pithead baths and the numbers of them. It is perfectly true that there are still more pits without baths than pits with them, notwithstanding all the efforts and great work which has been put in, but if hon. Members will study the identities of the pits which have baths they will see that it is the big pits and the continuing pits which have got the baths. That is the reason why the majority of miners are provided with pithead baths. It is the smaller pits and the pits which are more difficult to provide with baths and less advantageous from the industrial point of view to provide with baths, which still have to have them provided.
My time is up, but we shall have more time on the Committee stage to go into the details of the Bill. I should like to thank the House very much for the reception they have given to it on its Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (TRAINING)

10.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1951, praying that the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act Extension Order, 1952, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 31st January.
I do not think the House would wish me to weary them with a repetition of the very full explanation of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act given by the then Secretary of State for Air in 1951. The legal effect of the Motion before the House is that the Act shall apply to 1952, and I think the House will appreciate that the need for the introduction of this Measure is identical, almost exactly—but not quite exactly—to the need for its application in 1951, that is to say, to build up the reserves of the Reserve Army for training during its period of annual camp.
This proposal applies to Class Z of the Army Reserve and Class G of the Royal Air Force Reserve. The period of training which is proposed is for 15 days, as before. This period of training will be staggered in the case of the Army between the months of March and December and, in the case of the Royal Air Force, between May and September. The majority of men of the Z Reserve called up will be under 35 years of age, although certain specialists and others may be over that age.
As far as possible, as I have already informed the House, the call-up will be on a geographical basis, but where specialist units are concerned, especially the Supplementary Reserve, it is not possible to follow this principle. All men who are to be called up for training this year have received their warning notices and no man who has not received a warning notice need have any fear that he will be called up. The process which is now followed is that they will undergo a medical examination which, if satisfactory, will be followed by a notice to join. The same legal protection applies this year as applied last year, and exactly the same principle regarding appeals for exemptions.
The only other point I should like to mention to the House—and I am now speaking purely about the Army and not the Royal Air Force side of this matter—is that in the coming year we shall have in this country far fewer Regulars than we did to assist in the Z Class training in 1951. Although I am confident that the training will be satisfactorily carried out, this shortage of Regulars in the country will undoubtedly produce a difficulty in this respect.
In introducing this Motion I think I should really, on behalf of the late Government as well as the House, pay some tribute to the Z reservists who came up last year—well over 200,000 in number—of whom only 100 were proceeded against, either for absence or offences, and who entered into this form of training, which cannot have been welcomed, in a very wholehearted, co-operative and keen manner. On the whole, I think we as a nation have cause to be very grateful for the presence of the Z reservists in our midst and for the way in which, last year, they responded to the scheme and the method of approach, which will also be adopted this year.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: There is nothing in this proposal to which we on this side of the House object. The proposal is, of course, to carry on—without any change of any kind—the scheme which we had in operation last year, to carry it on into the coming year.
Having said that, I think I am bound to say, and to say it on behalf of some of my hon. Friends, that we should be something less than human if we did not point out the great difference in the views of the scheme which right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite are now displaying from those which they displayed when we introduced this scheme just a year ago. I have refreshed my memory about one or two things they said at that time. The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) was the spokesman on several occasions for the Opposition at the time and he was very bitter indeed about the Z Reserve scheme. He told us that it was a hastily got up scheme and that something much more permanent and much better would have to be substituted for it.
Curiously enough, it was in opposing at that time and in taking the Committee to a Division on this very question of the way in which the scheme was to be extended, that he felt most strongly. He took us to a Division in Committee in which the Committee was tied, 82 to 82. The Opposition at that time voted against Clause 12 of the Bill which provides for this method of extending the scheme.
At that time the right hon. Gentleman said:
We do not like this Clause…After all, it does not fully meet the training needs of the Territorial Army: it does not meet the needs of the Regular Army or Air Force at home. It certainly does not meet the needs of the Air Force abroad."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2499.]
It is gratifying to those of us who had to commend the Bill to the House at the time to find that in 1952 there is, after all, enough to be said for the Act for the Government to be continuing it unaltered.
There is one issue with which I think we feel it necessary to ask the right hon. Gentleman or whoever is to reply to deal, and that is the pledge which my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Defence gave a year ago that no man called up under last years would be called up again this year. It was a very specific and very clear-cut pledge which we gave, and I think I should recall to the House my right hon. Friend's words. On 14th February the then Minister of Defence said:
Moreover, I can give the House this assurance—that no Class Z or Class G or Volunteer reservist called up for training this year will be called up for similar training in future years," —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1952; Vol. 484, c. 416.]
I take it that that pledge stands. I must make the point because the right hon. Member for Bromley was against that pledge. He said:
A different set of men are to be called up. Clearly, they will not be the men whom the Government now think are the most useful and desirable. They will, as has been said, be a kind of second eleven. What will happen in the third year? … It seems to be a very unwise pledge to have given in all the circumstances." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1851.]
We have it on record that the right hon. Gentlemen who are now the Government were against the giving of the pledge at that time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: So was the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).

Mr. Strachey: I think they all were. We think the pledge ought to be renewed now if it is the intention, as we hope and presume it is, to honour it.
What I have said is perhaps the natural ventilation of the feelings of some on this side of the House, but at any rate we are glad that Members on all sides of the House are agreed now that this was a good and sound scheme which, within its limitations—and, of course, it had very real limitations and difficulties—has worked well. I think that a good many of us—I know that many right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House and some of us here—visited units to which Z reservists were called up, and I think the whole House will agree that it was surprisingly successful. I certainly should like to join most heartily in the tribute which the Secretary of State has paid to the Z reservists themselves.
I should like to add to that a tribute to the officers, n.c.o.s and men of the volunteer Territorial formations, who, as it were, acted as hosts to the Z reservists. It was a very big job in the units. They had a tremendous influx of reservists to cope with, and they were amazingly good, working themselves terribly hard, in many cases, in the way they did it. I think that in most cases—at any rate, in those I saw—the scheme really did serve its purpose, in bringing to life the units, as it were—by filling up the cadres in those units..
In that connection, of course, one ought to deal with the difficulty which is raised if the pledge which I have just referred to is honoured—that those units cannot be filled up again. But other units can be, and I think there is no doubt that though there is the disadvantage that we cannot bring up the same men again and give those same units another round of practice, we shall spread the effect more widely; if we do not go deeply in any given unit, we shall spread the effect more widely by calling up further units which will be called up this year.
Then we had to deal night after night, and very often at Question time, with that other type of objection which was raised. We were told that 15 days was

a uselessly short period for call-up. Well, it is a short period, but I think we shall all agree, in the light of experience, that it has proved long enough to be of very real value, at any rate; and I think—certainly it was my experience when I saw units and talked to the Z reservists themselves—15 days was about the maximum period in which we could in practice have worked a scheme of this character. That was about the maximum period of disturbance which was really tolerable for the industry of the country, and I think, about the maximum period of strain for the reservists themselves also.
So weighing one thing with another, we certainly come to the conclusion that, weighing the military advantages with the civilian disabilities, the scheme was about right in setting the 15 day limit, and we, at any rate, are very grateful for the fact and appreciative of the fact that the Government have, as it were, tacitly come round to that view by proposing tonight not to alter our proposals in any way at all, but simply to prolong them for another year.
Let us hope that this will be the last year that this will be necessary. It is each year less necessary, of course, because the National Service men flowing out of the Regular Forces into the Territorial Army are filling up these units and the Z reservists call-up, of course, is less necessary. But let us hope that this, or at any rate, next year, will be the last time that what is, in the nature of things, a stop-gap scheme will be necessary. For this year we do, of course, fully agree on this side of the House that it is necessary to have the Z Reserve call-up.

10.15 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I would not have intervened in this debate had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). If I may say so, his halo seems to be lying a bit heavy on him this evening. He claimed great credit for having been one of the Ministers who, in the last Parliament, introduced the Act which is now being continued in operation by my right hon. Friend. I ask him not to forget the reason why this Act ever became necessary. Had it not been for the fact that the previous Government, including the right hon. Gentleman, consistently ignored the warnings which we gave about what would happen to the


Regular Army unless he and his predecessor tackled the recruiting problem this Act would never have been necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman now refers to it as a stop-gap measure. Who made the gap? It was caused very largely because the Labour Government of 1945–50, in particular, completely failed to meet the needs of the Regular Army, and completely ignored the warnings which we gave, so that by 1948 and 1949 Regular Army recruiting was inadequate to meet even the wastage, let alone build up any strength. The right hon. Gentleman really is a little presumptuous in claiming quite so much credit as he has done tonight.
In referring to the promise given by the former Minister of Defence that the call up of Z reservists would not be repeated, the right hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. What my right hon. Friend said at that time was perfectly true. If men are called up in only one year and never called up again, that adds to the burden of training and makes it necessary each year to refresh new, or almost new men instead of men having the advantage of the previous year's training. There is nothing wrong in my right hon. Friend having said that because it is a fact which cannot be denied.
As hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well, one of the things we have to consider in this House is the human and social problem, and not the purely military problem. It was for that reason, with the agreement of the House, that we accepted the idea of the former Minister of Defence that this call-up should be for only one year. However, that adds to the burden, and I was glad to hear both right hon. Gentlemen who spoke tonight giving credit to those responsible for training these men. It will add to the burden this year, and it is obviously only right that the burden which has to be borne by the men who will be called up from the Reserve should be distributed as fairly as possible.

Mr. George Wigg: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what he had in mind during the debate on Section 12 of the Act last year, when he said that before the Bill was reviewed it would, to use his own words, require drastic amend-

ment? Do I take it that he would accompany me in the Lobby tonight against this Motion?

Major Legge-Bourke: We on this side of the House have an advantage over hon. Members opposite in that we do sometimes find it possible to change our minds. The hon. Member finds it very difficult to alter the views which he first formed when he did his honourable Regular service in the Army. He has found it impossible to change his mind about anything upon which he then decided.
I do not think that any of us on this side would wish to withdraw one little bit of the credit which has been given to the way in which this scheme was operated. It did prove successful, and, if we were to introduce another scheme today, it would mean that all the machinery of which there has been experience in the last year would have to be renewed and re-designed.
It seems to me far better for us to continue a scheme which, thanks very largely to the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, has been made to operate. My own belief is that the right hon. Member for Dundee, West, owes a very great debt, as he has been the first to admit, to those Regular officers and n.c.o.'s in particular who were responsible for making this scheme work. Without them he could not have done it. I think that we should be adding even further to their burdens if we were now to suggest a completely different scheme.
That still does not get away from the fact that this Act ought never to have been necessary, and only became necessary because of the incompetence of the previous two Governments. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but he is a past master in the art of incompetence; we all know that. It is good to hear him give credit to the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, and I am sure that they will greatly appreciate it. I personally believe that we were quite right, when this Act was first introduced, to criticise it in the way we did. I do not think that we should withdraw one word of the criticism we then made, because I believe that criticism made it a better Act.
Just as we hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will have valuable contributions to make by way of Amendment to the


legislation which this Government introduces, so we at least claim some credit for having endeavoured in our own capacity to improve the Bill when it was introduced. I believe that this Act must be continued. In fact, I am particularly affected by it this year, in that I have my own calling-up papers as a Regular reservist. I think that it is necessary for this call-up to go on this year, and I hope that it will not be necessary next year, but I am particularly certain that it will be. I hope that when next year comes, my right hon. Friend will have had a chance of examining the whole scheme in greater detail than he has obviously had time to do so far, and then perhaps it may be possible to satisfy the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) by introducing better legislation than we believe this to be.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was a bit muddled when he talked about incompetence with regard to recruiting. I am old enough to remember when hunger, starvation and unemployment was the chief recruiting officer.

Major Legge-Bourke: That is quite untrue.

Mr. Simmons: It is perfectly true, and it is certainly not the incompetence but the extraordinary competence of the Labour Government in getting full employment that has had some effect upon recruiting into the Regular Armed Forces.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Although I have not the actual figures with me, it has been repeated over and over again in this House that at the time when the figures were highest, Regular recruiting was lowest.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Simmons: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made an assertion which he is perfectly entitled to make, but of which he has given us no proof. I am really rather surprised at the docility of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. For years they have been fulminating, frothing at the mouth, against Government by statutory order or Order in Council. They posed

as "sea-green, incorruptible" defenders of democracy, and they protested vehemently against Orders in Council depriving the private Member of his rights and depriving the House of the opportunity of discussing vital and important problems.
The present Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has already been quoted in one respect, in the Committee stage of the Bill said:
I do not like the Order in Council, even with the affirmative Resolution. I do not see why if amendment is required it should not be in the Bill. If none is required, a simple one-Clause Bill can be passed. Having regard to the fact that the Regular Army and the Regular Air Force must have a yearly Bill to prevent their becoming an illegal conspiracy, it does not seem unreasonable that there should he a yearly Bill to deal with the question of Reserves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2500.]
I do not see the right hon. Gentleman in his place tonight to carry on his attack on the monstrous form of government which he castigated on the Committee stage of the Bill.
Then we had a few gems from the hon. and gallant Member for Berwickon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp). He peered into the future, but his crystal ball was not at all clear. He said:
Am I to understand that…followers of the present Government will not, if they do not want to, have to go into the Lobby with the Government.
First of all he asked whether this was going to be a free vote so that hon. Gentlemen who followed the Government would not, if they did not want to, have to go into the Lobby with the Government. He added:
It will be interesting to see what happens.
That is what we on this side of the House are saying tonight; it will be interesting to see what happens on the part of hon. Members who were so vehement in their opposition to an Order similar to the one we have in front of us tonight. The hon. Member said:
…we ought to agree to the Amendment which will more than make it possible—it will make it a certainty—that the Bill, or a form of the Bill, will be brought up next year and can be discussed in detail by the House as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 61–2.]
Then we have the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low). He was very concerned about the whole business. He said:


We should be thinking far more about what is the duty of Parliament in this matter than what are the rights and powers of the Government. It seems to me that the Government are quite wrong if they are frightened of having another long discussion on these very important matters which were discussed last Thursday."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 72.]
Is the present Government frightened of discussion upon this matter, as one of their present colleagues seemed to suggest on that occasion?
One right hon. Member who is vindicated by the action of the Government tonight is the ex-Minister of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). My right hon. Friend said that if the present Prime Minister and his hon. Friends were on the other side of the House and were faced with those circumstances, he wondered what they would do. He added:
I am fairly, and, I think, reasonably sure that they would proceed in such circumstances by means of Order in Council, although I should not be at all surprised if some hon. Members of the Opposition opposed them. But I reckon that the Government would be right. It is because I believe that we are right in all these circumstances that, in spite of the arguments that have been adduced … I hope the House will agree that we are doing the right thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 82.]
Why is there this change of front on the other side of the House? They are in power—precariously, rumblings are going on underneath, but they are in power—and they are going to use their power. They know better; in their hearts they feel that the Order in Council is the wrong method. They said so; we could quote more of their speeches. In supporting this Motion tonight they are not acting according to their lights, but according to political expediency.
It is the intention of many of us on this side to support the Motion tonight. We do so because we were convinced when we were the Government that it was the right thing to do. But how will hon. Members opposite reconcile themselves in supporting the Motion?

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am opposed to this Statutory Instrument. One of the reasons is that I want to know exactly what the operations contemplated in it cost last year. When we have been asked to economise

in all spheres of national expenditure we should certainly have a statement of exactly what this elaborate operation costs—[An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know."] If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, it should have been thought of before.
Whatever Order or piece of legislation comes before the House we are entitled to know exactly what it costs the British taxpayer, in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us. I am not sure that we are getting our money's worth for this elaborate call-up. This year, again, there will be large numbers of people who object to being called up, who are very reluctant to go and who are going only because they are being dragged.
I do not think the statement could be challenged that if this were made voluntary we simply would not get the men to go, because there is no very great feeling in this country in favour of elaborate military training. The great majority of our people are sick of all talk of war preparations, and quite rightly so. If this were made voluntary everyone knows that the whole thing would be a flop.
People are saying that in the last war they were called up to fight the Germans and the Germans were the great enemies; we were to destroy Hitlerism. Now we are being told that these men are to be part and parcel of some kind of European organisation which is to work side by side with the German Army which, in the last war, they fought so long and bitterly to destroy. The whole thing does not make sense and if we were to put it to the democratic test of whether they would go or would not go we know very well, on both sides of the House, that we simply would not get the men to go because they have more common sense and understanding than the people fortunate enough to be sent here to legislate for them.
I would like some explanation of whether the military experts opposite really think, apart from the question of principle, whether we are getting real value from military training by calling up men for 15 days. I do not believe that the military Members on the other side of the House really believe that there is any substantial increase in the efficiency of the Armed Forces by this 15 days a year business.
I am not of course an expert, but I am guided by hon. Members opposite—[Laughter.] Yes, I listen to the pearls cast by hon. Members. I listen attentively and I understand that the argument is that since the last war, since 1945, military warfare and military ideas have changed substantially. For example, in the Air Force I understand that aircraft are now more elaborate and are almost entirely different from what they were in 1945. Yet the Government are dragging men up and saying, "In 15 days we are teaching you so that you will be useful in modern warfare as far as air operations are concerned."
I am prepared to be convinced, but I am sceptical. I believe that the Government are taking this action because they simply do not know what to do about this piece of cumbersome organisation which was bequeathed to them by the last Government. They are simply doing an ordinary, Conservative thing—doing what people did before.
I do not believe that there is any increase in efficiency or that the organisation of the military Forces, such as they are, will be improved. I believe that if hon. Members on both sides of the House were asked privately what they thought about it they would probably agree with me. I want to know what has happened to the men who said, "No. We had enough of war in the last war and we have changed our minds. We do not want to go into a war to fight, for example, Communism or to fight the Russians."
I have seen a great deal in the newspapers about Z men who have had common sense enough to be conscientious objectors. What has happened to them? As far as I can make out, at the tribunals at which these men appeared they put up their case which seemed to me to be very clear and logical. They said, "We have learned from practical experience what the Army and what war is like, and that experience has convinced us that the whole thing is futile and we do not want to go again."
But as far as I can see, the great majority of these tribunals have come to the conclusion that because a man has beeen in uniform for a few years he must necessarily be considered ungenuine and a fraud if he says, "This

time I have thought the whole thing over and I am genuinely opposed to this organisation and I object to wasting my time in it." What has happened? Have these men been dragged reluctantly into the Army? Have any of them been sent to jail for it? Have any of them come under military law and been sent to detention prisons?
I believe that a large number of people did object to going but they went because they were dragged. They went into the Army and served their time reluctantly and they will be greatly disappointed if they are to be called up again. I am not satisfied on any ground at all that the House is justified in agreeing to this proposal. I believe that the majority of Z men will whole-heartedly endorse what I have said tonight.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) introduced into this debate certain reflections on Army recruiting which I think it is necessary to correct. In the first place, when account is taken of the war weariness of a very large section of the population and of full employment, recruiting for the Regular Army under the last Government was extremely good. In the years immediately after that Government came into power, the Regular Army recruiting figures were higher than they had been in the years before the war.
Then came a change, due very largely to the impact of National Service. When it became clear that we were to have National Service in time of peace, that drew away as National Service men a large number of men who would otherwise have been recruits for the Regular Army. If the hon. and gallant Member had studied this matter more seriously, and not merely for partisan purposes, he would remember that, in the debate on the Army Estimates last year, it was apparent that a very gratifying proportion of young National Service men were becoming recruits into the Regular Army towards the conclusion of the National Service period, and, if that admirable record were maintained under the present Government, it would contribute very considerably towards the removal of our anxieties in regard to Regular recruiting.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman tried 10 suggest that there was no correlation


between unemployment before the war and Regular recruiting. I think I know what he did. He partly memorised the figure of men actually accepted into the Regular Army, and demonstrated from that that there was very little relation between it and the volume of unemployment. If he will look at what is really relevant—the number of men who applied to get into the Regular Army—he will see that it is quite clearly correlated to the unemployment figures.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman is advancing something in support of what he says, but I was only answering the charge, very often made from the other side of the House, that the Army became the home of the unemployed, which it never did.

Mr. Stewart: The point made on this side was that, if we have heavy unemployment, it is a very powerful factor driving men into the Regular Forces—a very powerful and very undesirable factor—and it was in the absence of that compulsion that the last Government had to deal with Regular recruiting, and dealt with it very creditably.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Has the hon. Gentleman any figures showing accurately the number of men who applied to join the Regular Forces? I remember the figure quoted last year, but I have been unable to find it.

Mr. Stewart: I myself checked the figure at the time, because the figures were then available to me. I think I could find out where I obtained them, and I will endeavour to trace again the source from which I got them. The result, however, was quite clear. There was a direct correlation between the number of persons applying to join the Regular Army and the figures of the unemployed.
Further, the last Government applied to the problem of Regular recruiting measures, both with regard to pay, both of officers and other ranks, and in regard to improved housing, which far exceeded the very minor suggestions which came from the party opposite in the debate in the last Parliament. The suggestions made for the improvement of pay by the Conservative Party in the last Parliament were derisory. The hon. and gal-

lant Gentleman completely misconceived the whole problem, because, whatever the size of the Regular Army, we are still faced today with this problem that we must have, behind the full-time Army, a much greater number of trained reservists, and these reservists in a much greater state of readiness than was the case in the past.
That is something which is due to the nature of modern war and the nature of the peril in which this country would stand if that were not the case. Whether the Regular Army was its present size or only half of it, we should still be faced with the problem of maintaining that degree of readiness, and the last Government took appropriate action on that problem by inserting in the National Service Act the provision whereby men, after their full-time National Service, undertook Territorial training later.
The effect of that is to meet this very problem, but, of course, that effect quite inevitably could not be produced until a period of years had gone by. That was why there was a gap to be filled, and that gap in our Reserve preparations would have been there whatever the size of the full-time Regular Army. It was for that reason that a Measure of this kind was necessary. It might not have been necessary if if the international sky had been perfectly clear. We could then had had the gap and not worried about it. Unfortunately, that was not so.
That is the genesis of this Measure, and I am sorry to weary the House with considerations that it might not have been necessary to introduce had it not been for the efforts of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely to cause the House to forget the rather unfortunate attempts of his party to cut out this Clause from the Bill in last year's Parliament.
I wanted to begin my remarks by congratulating the Government, not on putting this Motion before us, of course, but on having the Clause in the Act to have the legal power to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has pointed out, they are indeed to be congratulated on that, because it was by a mere hair's breadth that this Clause remained in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely need not have gone to such lengths to justify the actions of the Conservative


Party on that occasion. The reason why they did it was perfectly clear. I am sure that the Patronage Secretary, who I see is present, will bear me out in this matter.
We debated this Clause last year in the small hours of the morning. It seemed a fairly safe bet that if a Division could be provoked on something, owing to the fact that many hon. Members on both sides had gone away, there was a fair chance of defeating the Government. As it happened this Clause was the next on which a Division could then be called, and it was called. Unfortunately, the careful counting that had gone on was one out on the Conservative side, but, owing to the happy rule of our procedure governing the use of the casting vote—and I believe, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was yourself who was in the Chair at the time—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. It may or may not have been, but it does not arise on this Motion.

Mr. Stewart: With the very greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the legal powers for introducing this Order arose from certain Clauses of that Bill. I am discussing the debate which arose on that very Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot go back on the Act now. We are only dealing with the Order before us.

Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree that we cannot go back on the Act now, and I am sure the party opposite were as pleased as we were that they were defeated on that occasion. Indeed, it was remarkable how much the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War's comments on this matter of calling up the Z Reserve recalled the remarks made by Members of the late Government when they were putting the scheme before the House last year. They had to describe how although we did not seek to call up the men over 35 it might be necessary to do it in some cases, and how, although in the main the call-up would be on a geographical basis there were bound to be some exceptions to that.

Mr. Head: I think I am right in saying that we had no quarrel about the importance of calling up the majority of

those under 35. As to the geographical basis, we had considerable quarrel, because hardly any was done on that basis, and where it differs this year is that it is going to be done to a great extent on that basis.

Mr. Stewart: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman brings out that point because it answers a point I was going to put to him. He has now had the opportunity of studying the experiment of last year's call-up, and I was wondering if there was anything he had learned from that experience which could be applied to the administration of the scheme this year. I am glad to hear it has been possible in the light of experience to make that improvement. It would indeed have been lamentable if after a year's experience it had been impossible to discover any improvement to be made on what was done last year.
Now I wish to say a word, first of all, about the men who will try not to be called up, who will seek exemption on one ground or another. It is necessary that the Secretary of State for War should confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, has suggested, the intention of the Government not to call up this year men who were called up last year. The need for the Government Front Bench to do so has been rendered more necessary in view of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
The comment made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) last year was that the pledge not to call up this year those called up last year was an unwise pledge. Presumably he had weighed up the military and social arguments to which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely referred. It is extremely important that we should know that the Secretary of State for War does not share the very ill-advised view of his colleague on that matter, but will adhere to the pledge given by the last Government.
For the most part, with regard to the Army call-up—though I believe this did act apply to the Royal Air Force—we found it extremely difficult last year to arrange a change of date for a man's call-up. Therefore, if a man wrote, as many did, "I am genuinely anxious to do my bit but there are particular reasons why it is very inconvenient for me to


come this fortnight." we had to write and say, "If your reasons are good enough we shall have to cancel the call-up." I do not know what arrangements have been made this year to change the date of a man's call-up to meet the position of men prepared to do their best but who have genuine reasons why they cannot do it during a certain fortnight.
If I may turn from the men who may claim exemption to the men who will serve the 15 days, I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), had a point to make. He thought the 15 days were not sufficient, a view which he may remember he shares with the Prime Minister, but not apparently with the Secretary of State for War. I should like to pay my tribute to all those who contributed last year to making this call-up the undoubted success which it was. But there are two considerations. One is whether in the anxiety to make full use of the 15 days undue physical strain was not put on the men in some cases. That point should be considered this year.
More usually, however, when military organisations of any kind get hold of men the complaint in time of peace is not that they work them too much but that they work them too little. There were few complaints of that kind about the Z Reserve call-up last year. I endeavoured to get as many opinions as I could from men who served last year. Very few indeed complained of wasted time, but I noticed—it may have been no more than a coincidence—that the very few who did complain had served in a unit which had had transport duties. It may be a coincidence but it may be that that branch of the Service requires special attention.
I hope that whoever replies to this debate will say something on these points because I believe the House is prepared to support this Motion provided it is sure the time taken from the men's civilian life, from their work and leisure, is wisely and efficiently used.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: The contrast between the atmosphere a year ago and the atmosphere now prevailing is most marked, indeed almost strange. I remember only too well that from the

late months of 1950 right up to the Second Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act the Press was full of alarmist stories about the size and length of the call-up. Everything was done that could be done by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their Press to use the fact that it was necessary to have a Z Reserve call-up to get the maximum political advanage for their party and to discredit the Labour Government.
That was the atmosphere a year ago. If any hon. Gentleman doubts that, let him take the files of one paper, the "Sunday Express," to start with, and see the story what that paper put about—and they were not alone, so I do not want to award any medals to them, certainly not to increase their circulation. The party opposite, from the time it became clear that a measure of national re-armament was vital to the security of the country, on every occasion paid lip service to that principle but sought in the details, on every possible occasion, to extract the maximum political advantage from it for themselves.

Mr. Head: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that if there was any criticism of the Z Reserve scheme from our side of the House, it was that the 15 days proposed by the Government was not long enough. Is that type of suggestion—that the period was not long enough—one calculated to gain political popularity?

Mr. Wigg: I have too high an opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's ability to think that he believes that story. Of course he does not; he knows it is quite untrue and he is talking with his tongue in his cheek. The present Prime Minister came to the House and suggested that 15 days was not long enough, I know, although he has taken 15 days again this year, but the rank and file of the Tory Party said something different. I will send the right hon. Gentleman some cuttings; I have a stack of them. They show what some of the minnows on the back benches were saying; they said the scheme was not necessary.

Major Tufton Beamish: rose—

Mr. Wigg: Let me deal with one thing at a time. Tonight, one of the military experts on the benches opposite, the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely


(Major Legge-Bourke) makes the point that it was through the incompetence of the Labour Administration over the period 1945–51—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Quite right.

Mr. Wigg: Other hon. Gentlemen agree with him. If one is to take a dispassionate and objective view of the proposal we are asked to support tonight, one must examine this situation—and I hope at the same time to remain in order.

Major Beamish: rose—

Mr. Wigg: Let me deal with this point first. The hon. and gallant Gentleman overlooked one simple fact—that almost every Regular soldier, by the time VE day came, was time-expired. In fact, there was no Regular Army. One thing that is quite certain—and I do not blame the Prime Minister for this—was that neither the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in charge of military affairs, nor the then Secretary of State for War, Sir James Grigg, did a single thing to prepare for the recruitment of the Regular Army in peace-time.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: What did the hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Wigg: What I did was to come to the House and try to point out some of the things which ought to be done, with the support, I may say, of some hon. Members opposite—but they were not talking the nonsense which the hon. and gallant Member talks.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was not the case that the Regular Army men were all time-expired. A great many of them would have re-engaged or extended their service if they had been given a lead by the Government.

Mr. Wigg: It is almost impossible to grapple with stupidity of that kind. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has spent most of his life in the Regular Army, and it is extraordinary that one can remain in an organisation so long and yet know so little about it. The Regular soldier joins, in the first instance, for 12 years.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that three-quarters of the men who enlisted on Regular enlistment in the period between 1918 and 1939 engaged for seven years or less?

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not."] No Regular soldiers have enlisted for less than 12 years.

Mr. Nabarro: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said no Regular soldiers—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that this point arises on this Motion.

Mr. Wigg: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I reaffirm that all Regular soldiers always enlist for 12 years, partly with the Colours, partly with the Reserve; but always for 12 years. It therefore follows, of course, that Regular soldiers who were serving with the Colours in 1939 were, in fact, time expired. It may be, of course, that some of them would in the normal way have extended their service, but it was obvious that there was a great dearth of n.c.o.'s and a great dearth of officers, and that it was going to be very difficult to fill that gap. That is what Class Z had to set about doing.
It was also clear, when the new national Army began to take shape, that after a time some of the young men who had been called up for National Service would become n.c.o.'s, having been drafted into the ranks and the Territorial Army, and having gained enough experience. But until that time was reached there was bound to be a dearth of senior n.c.o.'s that could be met only by calling on men of experience gained during the war. Because of the worsening international situation the late Government, with the agreement of all sides of the House, decided to call up the Class Z men.
When this proposal was introduced to the House one of the main arguments raised against it was that the scheme was not sound, and that it was too difficult, and ought not to be entrusted to the then Defence Minister. I think that it was the present First Lord of the Admiralty who used the argument that no trust could be placed in the Minister of Defence in a Labour Administration.
There was not very much in that argument. There is not much in it tonight. There never has been anything in it because the stock argument raised from the Tory benches, whenever there has been any other Administration, Labour or


Liberal, has been that only the Conservatives can run the Service Ministries. I do not want to ride a hobby horse, but it is a fact that all the great measures of Service reform have come from either a Labour or a Liberal Administration, never from the Tory Party. So far as the Conservatives are concerned, they are political mules.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), who was Under-Secretary of State for War at the time when we had the debate last year, did not give sufficient credit to the tenacity with which the party opposite cling to that principle.
On 5th March last we had a full-dress debate on the proposal which we are now asked to continue. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) on having the courage to come to the House tonight, and not to withdraw from the words he used on that occasion. He said then that we should have to have another Bill; he did not think the Order in Council method would work; indeed, he said very much the same thing as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
That was not confined to the back benches, because we also had the present Solicitor-General. Then, of course, there was that master of political tactics, the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who gave us a lecture on the evils of delegated legislation and how bad it would be for us if we adopted this course. There followed the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), who told us that the future of the House of Commons was at stake. He—now a distinguished Member of the present stopgap Government—said:
I would say… that it is not a question of having faith in the Government, but of having faith in Parliament, that we are discussing today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March. 1951; Vol. 485, c. 69–70.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now clearly going beyond the Rules of Order.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I have transgressed the Rules of Order, but I have only followed the well-beaten paths which have been followed by hon. Gentlemen opposite and have been replying to them.

I am only too anxious, of course, to accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and as far as I can I shall endeavour not to transgress further in the few more remarks I have to make.
I think that we must accept this Motion. I accept it in the same way as I accepted it a year ago. It is obsolutely necessary in order to secure the sufficiency and well-being of the Territorial Army, and I certainly hope that none of my hon. Friends will think of dividing the House on it. However, I do want an assurance that no Class Z reservist will be called up for a second time, and that the Government will not go back on what they said last year. I should also like an assurance that reasonable objections of Class Z reservists who find themselves in business or family difficulties will be treated with as much humanity as they were treated by the last Government.

Brigadier Clarke: What about the Regulars?

Mr. Wigg: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about, and neither does he.
One of the reasons why the Class Z call-up was a success a year ago was because the Army set about the ask of receiving them in the spirit of the times. There was little evidence of the serjeantmajor, but there was a great deal of evidence of welcoming the men back into the units they had left. There was a realisation that there was a job to be done; a realisation on both sides, by both the Class Z reservists and the officers and n.c.o.'s responsible for their training.
If this scheme, which is still in the experimental stage, is to work it is terribly important that, for the sake not only of the immediate Class Z call-up but of the spirit of the Territorial Army, this good will should be retained at all costs, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tonight give us an assurance that he will do everything in his power to see that the good work that was done last year, in the teeth of his own and his hon. Friend's opposition, is carried on so that the year 1952 can bring us a good year, with that security which we all want, irrespective of party.

Major Beamish: May I put this point before the hon. Gentleman concludes? During his speech he said, quite rightly,


that the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister expressed doubts as to whether 15 days was long enough to call up the Z reservists. He went on to say that he had a pile of records to show that many of my hon. Friends went all round the country saying that the Z call-up was unnecessary. I believe that to be completely and absolutely untrue. Will the hon. Gentleman either get up now and give me the name of a single one of my hon. Friends who made that remark, or withdraw a most unworthy charge?

Mr. Wigg: I referred to the "minnows on the back-benches." I meant the back-benches in the House and the backbenches of the Conservative Party. If the hon. and gallant Member likes, I will supply him with cuttings to show that members of the Conservative Party tried to exploit the difficulties of the Class Z call-up.

Major Beamish: That is not good enough.

Mr. Wigg: That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman will get.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Head: I introduced this Motion in the hope that it would come before the House as a reasonably non-controversial matter—

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to address the House without leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has a right of reply.

Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not so green as not to make inquiries about the procedure before I appear at the Despatch Box. His interruption is some indication of the extent of his knowledge of the subject that we are discussing.
I introduced this Motion feeling that there would be general agreement, but it is fair to say that we have got into a debate on most of the controversial matters which can be hooked on to the Order. Personally, I think it would be wrong for me entirely to pass over the very strong criticism which has been made of this side of the House by many hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not want to keep the House up late, but I do

not wish to shirk some of the accusations which have been made against us.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), started off, by saying—I rather thought he would—"We introduced this scheme, you criticised it; now you have introduced one absolutely identical. Therefore, all your criticism was rubbish and our scheme was excellent." Frankly, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is walking on very thin ice in making that remark. Just think of this to start with. On matters of common equity and fairness, with one lot of Z men called up last year, can we alter the conditions of the others to be called up?

Mr. Strachey: This is an important point. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that if there were improvements which he could think of and which the Government would introduce, he would fail to introduce them because, retrospectively, the men who were called up last year could not have enjoyed them. That would be a very strange doctrine.

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman is really too disingenuous in making that remark. He knows exactly to what I am referring. These men are being called up for 15 days as they were last year. Supposing the late Minister of Defence had decided that the minimum required, especially for units in Germany, was a longer period, and supposing he had introduced such a scheme, it would have been possible in common equity to repeat it; but, having had one system for Z reservists one year, it is extremely unfair to change it the following year. I say this to the right hon. Member, that the standard for this scheme and the promises concerning repeated call-up and the general long-term scheme were introduced by the Government of hon. Members opposite, and it is ridiculous for them to say that we can introduce any scheme of this type which stretches over a period of years without setting a precedent which it is extremely hard to break.

Mr. Wigg: Hon. Members opposite said they would do so.

Mr. Head: The right hon. Member for Dundee, West, knows that just as well as I do. I make that point, and I do so solely for the reason that it was for


the right hon. Gentleman when he was sitting on these benches to judge the criticism which we levelled then; but if he discards all that criticism as fatuous and futile at the time, I reject his argument.

Mr. Strachey: I cannot accept the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward. If he thought the scheme wrong then and still thinks it wrong now, he had better alter and improve it now. It might put greater or lesser obligations on the Z reservists for the second year, but surely he does not mean that because a thing has happened one year we cannot improve it the next year. I really cannot accept that.

Mr. Head: Let me take one instance —the guarantee given that no man would be called up twice. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that every Government inherits pledges? My point is that in all matters of government, the undertakings and system of a continuous scheme introduced by a previous Government inevitably commits its successor to certain obligations, and it is ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman entirely to turn down that submission. The right hon. Gentleman made this pledge that no man would be called up twice. As I have been addressed by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and others on this point, let me say that we honour that pledge, and that no man will be called up twice. That assurance we give unreservedly to the House.
I should like to say this about some of the criticisms which have been made about the scheme. The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) made a good many criticisms about the scheme, and, among other things, he entirely rejected the arguments concerning the necessity for the scheme or the possibly smaller proportions in which the scheme would have been necessary had the Army thrived more between 1945 and 1950. There was a certain amount in what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is an undoubted fact that if between 1945 and 1950 the size of the Regular Army could have been increased more, the number of Z reservists required would have been fewer. There is surely no dispute about that.

Mr. M. Stewart: I was answering a different contention. The contention was that something could have been done which would have rendered this totally unnecessary. I do not think that that can be maintained at all.

Mr. Head: We shall have to see HANSARD tomorrow, but I understood that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was making the point that if the Regular Army had not run down so far up to 1950 and if Regular recruiting had been stimulated, there would have been more men in that side of the Army and there would have been a necessity for perhaps a lesser degree of call-up of Z reservists. I wished to make that point because it is an undoubted fact that we would have had to call up fewer Z reservists if the Regular Army had not run down so far, and the hon. Gentleman knows that the Regular Army was allowed to run down because its true function was seen as a cadre and not as something far larger to carry out the very big commitments we have today.
Incidentally, while I mention the Regular Army it is wrong of the hon. Member for Dudley to say that there was no Regular Army at all after the war. The size of the Regular Army was 100,000 men after the war. The hon. Member ought to have known that. That is very different from nothing.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman should also take into account the extent to which it was diluted. There was no Regular Army in the sense that he and I knew it before the war.

Mr. Head: The difference between 100,000 men in the Regular Army and no Regular Army is, to my untutored mind, very considerable.
However, I do not really want to go into all these points and arguments, but a lot of these things have been said. The hon. Member for Fulham, East, said that he had personally checked up on the figures and the numbers of men who had tried to join the Regular Forces. Surely if he took so much trouble he must know where he got his information. Was it from a Ministry or from an individual? He must have some idea of the source. I do not believe such figures exist.

Mr. M. Stewart: The source was an official document, the exact description


of which I shall endeavour to obtain again and let the right hon. Gentleman have.

Mr. Head: I am very much obliged; we do not want to go into this at length. I have an official document on recruitment and, because this has been such an oft-quoted and oft-repeated matter, I would point out to hon. Members that in 1925 the recruiting figures for the year were 32,000. I will read them out for 1925 to 1930. The figures are; 32,000, 29,000, 27,000, 29,000, 28,000, and 26,000 in 1930.

Mr. Harold Davies: I also have the figures. Will the right hon. Gentleman now quote the figure for 1931. It was 34,458, and they were in such a terrific jam that they reduced the height for infantrymen to 5 ft. 2 ins.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind, as proof of the economic argument, that in 1925 and 1931 Conservative administrations cut Army pay?

Mr. Head: The hon. Member certainly takes a very active part in the proceedings for an assistant Whip. It is a very difficult matter to go into in the House, but if hon. Members have the time I suggest they go to the Library because, at a guess, I should say that 18 months or two years ago a graph was published in "The Economist." I am not trying to get out of it, but I do not think we shall come to any useful conclusion tonight about the effect of unemployment on recruiting.

Mr. Wigg: rose—

Mr. Head: I am sorry, but I think we had better get on.
This is an old and, for the rest of the House, a boring subject that we have thrashed out in successive Army debates over a long period. I do not want to go on further about the rather contentious points which have been raised. What I would stress is that a scheme was worked out which at the start worked well. I will not say and did not say that it was a perfect scheme. I am aware that there are reasons against certain things, but it is quite wrong for hon. Members to say now that because we criticised their scheme it is hypocritical to introduce this one. If the hon. Member would have,

and I think he will have, the honesty to admit that had he remained in office another year and found or discovered or convinced himself of reasons why he should alter the scheme, he would know that, having set precedents for one set of services, it is a very dubious policy to alter it.

Mr. Strachey: I would say at once that I do not take that view. If we remained in office and thought, as we might have in the light of the working of the scheme, that it should be modified, we would have no hesitation in modifying it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to extend this doctrine he has put forward that they can do no modifications on what we have done to the other spheres, such as the social services, for example.

Mr, Head: That is twisting debating—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman used the word "modified." He knows very well what I mean—

Mr. Wigg: Say what you mean.

Mr. Head: I am going to say what I mean, and the hon. Member knows it quite well. There was a case for certain people having a longer period of training—

Mr. Wigg: Say what you mean.

Mr. Head: I am saying what I mean, and if the hon. Member cannot understand it he had better leave the House.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I do not often beg the protection of the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, either here or in other places. Am I to be permitted to remain in the House as long as I obey the Rules of Order, or is the right hon. Gentleman allowed to make remarks such as he has just made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that I said something. I did not say a word.

Mr. Simmons: Whose prerogative is it to ask an hon. Member to leave the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Yours or the Minister's?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mine.

Mr. Head: I am absolutely certain that the hon. Gentleman will not take any advice of mine. I made a remark that I thought was perfectly straightforward which he said was unintelligible. I think it was intelligible.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there must be considerable difficulty and difference of opinion as to the optimum period. He must have been aware of these discussions at the time. What I said was that he, one way or another, decided on that. He said, of course, that if we wish for a change we should make it, but he knows that the gaps and the extent of these changes are very considerable. As he is not going to follow me and has turned this into a debating point, I will not follow him.
I thought that I had made myself perfectly plain that our criticisms were valid for reasons of which he was well aware, but he chooses to turn aside his own knowledge in order to make a debating point. That does not show great honesty for the former Secretary of State for War if he takes that course of action and says that.
I am sorry that there has been so much heat over this matter. I do not think that it has done any harm; but I hope that this Motion will now be accepted by the House and that we can all agree that we hope that the Z class call-up in the coming year will be as successful, or even more successful, than last year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What will it cost?

Mr. Head: Although I cannot give an exact estimate for this year, I think that it will cost, on the lines of last year, around the £2 million mark.

Mr. M. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible to change the dates of call up?

Mr. Head: Yes. We have a system whereby people can appeal. There are two kinds of cases. First, the man whose special type of training can only be done at one date because his unit is only being called up then. In extreme cases he will be exempted, but where a change of date can be made it is made. Sometimes that is impossible and then, in an extreme case, exemption is granted.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: The Secretary of State for War has generated a good deal of heat and some offensiveness, but it seems to me only a smoke-screen to hide his failure to deal with the real charge that has been made in this debate. Therefore, as one

detached from the discussion of 12 months ago and with no past relationship to this matter, I think that we can still further probe the real view taken by the Minister.
The Minister now says that the reason why this procedure is being adopted and why we have to accept or reject this scheme en bloc is that, as the scheme was agreed upon 12 months ago and put into operation, we cannot now amend it. I should like to point out that it was after the main parts of the Bill had been passed 12 months ago that his hon. and right hon. Friends decided to vote against the Clause under which this procedure is being adopted. It was after the whole framework of the scheme had been agreed to and the main Clauses of the Bill had been passed that they said that it would require drastic amendment 12 months later and that, therefore, in this year of 1952, instead of bringing forward an Order a new Bill should be brought forward in order to make amendments.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has lightheartedly said that he is entitled to change his mind, and he certainly is, but nevertheless we hope that he still takes the point of view that he expressed very strongly in previous debates when he said:
That is why I say that, as Private Members of the House, we must preserve the right to move Amendments each year to this legislation, just as we have the right to move Amendments to the Army Act each year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 55.]

Mr. Speaker: The discussion which the hon. Member has quoted was on the Bill. We are now dealing with the Order, and that cannot be amended.

Mr. Swingler: Naturally, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I am dealing with the reasons why this procedure has been adopted for continuing this Act, and the question with which we have been concerned and are now faced is that hon. Members of this House have no opportunity this year of making amendments to the scheme, because the effect of the Order is to continue the 1951 Act en bloc.
The point I was trying to make is that, last year, the friends of the Secretary of State for War, after the main parts of the scheme had been approved by the House, still maintained that we ought to have the right to be able to amend this scheme in 1952. Although the Secretary of State


has said that it was hypocrisy on the part of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for War to make these points about the discussions last year, he must include in his charge a whole number of his hon. Friends on that side, including the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, all of whom said that, every year, as in the case of the Army Act, this House should have the right to be able to make Amendments to a Bill, instead of having to accept or reject en bloc this Motion which is brought forward tonight.
Therefore, I say to the Secretary of State, although he has dealt with many other points in his reply, has not dealt with this question, and has given us no reason why he voted once, and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air voted twice, against this procedure less than 12 months ago. Therefore, we must take it that the hypocrisy lies on that Front Bench.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1951, praying that the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act Extension Order, 1952, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 31st January.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — COTTON SACKS (IMPORT DUTIES)

11.34 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1951 (S.I. 1951, No. 2291), dated 22nd December, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.
This Order deals with the import duties on cotton sacks of a kind commonly used for exporting salt from this country. It has the effect of restoring the 20 per cent. duty normally applicable to these goods which has been temporarily in suspense. Until 1949, these cotton sacks, and other sacks and bags of vegetable fibre, were liable to the general ad valorem duty imposed by the Import Duties Act,

1932, as well as an additional import duty of 10 per cent., making a total of 20 per cent.
In December, 1949, the whole import duty on cotton sacks was suspended by the Import Duties (Exemption) (No. 2) Order, 1949, for a period of one year. The object of this action, which was taken with the consent of all concerned, was to assist the salt export trade, whose requirements of cotton sacks could not at that time be met from home production. This Order was later extended for a period of one year, ending 31st December, 1951, by the Import Duties (Exemption) (No. 11) Order, 1950.
The production of cotton sacks in the United Kingdom is now sufficient to meet the salt trade's requirements, and there is therefore no justification for continuing an exemption from import duty. Both the salt export trade and the British producers of cotton sacks have accepted this view. The present Order has the effect of restoring the duty to 20 per cent. as from 22nd December, 1951.
I should explain to the House that an additional Imports Duty Order is not normally required to restore a duty which has been suspended for a stated period. In this case, however, for technical reasons, an Order is necessary. The 1949 Order suspending the 20 per cent. duty was overtaken by the Import Duties (Consolidation) Order, 1949. This Order included provision for the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty on the sacks, but it could not make any provision for the charge of an additional duty of 10 per cent. because the sacks were at that time temporarily exempted from all duty.
Consequently, when the Order expired on 21st December last these sacks became liable only to the 10 per cent ad valorem duty if the present Order restoring this duty to 20 per cent. had not been made. I would add that that action has again been taken by agreement with both the salt exporters and the home producers of cotton sacks.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Minister's rather complicated explanation of this Order may, as far as the imports are concerned, be satisfactory so far as it goes. But I do not think he has attempted to explain to the House why it was left until as late as 22nd December before this Order was made


because, as the Minister pointed out, this exemption was due to expire on 21st December, 1951. If it were necessary to remove the exemption then, presumably some steps ought to have been taken about it before the expiration of the exemption on 21st December.
It seems to me hardly fair to the House that the Minister should have left it until the 22nd December before making this Order, thereby depriving the House of any opportunity of either assenting or dissenting until the present time, namely, 19th February, 1952. I think that where the Government feel it desirable to make a change of this kind in import duties they should not wait until the period of exemption has expired, but should take steps long before the expiry date.
They must have known long before 21st December, when this exemption was due to expire, whether they wanted the exemption to continue or not. I suggest that out of respect for this House the Government ought to have made up their minds much earlier in December regarding what they wanted to do about the matter. If they wanted to remove the exemption they ought to have made an Order before the House rose in December so that we could have had an opportunity of expressing an opinion about it instead of the situation in which we now find ourselves. Nearly two months after this exemption expired we are asked to approve the Government's action. I hope the Minister will give the House some explanation why this matter was not dealt with much earlier.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Hopkinson: By leave of the House, may I say that I am obliged to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) for raising this point. As a matter of fact, I had thought of dealing with it had not the time been so late. The position is that the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1951, was laid before the House of Commons on 22nd December, 1951, and, as the hon. Member said, came into operation on that day. This procedure was necessary —it was not a question of not having made up our minds or not having considered the matter—because the Order could not legally be made before 22nd December, 1951, that is to say until im-

mediately after the expiry of the Import Duties Exemption (No. 11) Order, 1950.
It was desirable to bring the Order into operation on the same day so as to restore the whole of the duty on these cotton sacks at the same time to the original level of 20 per cent. Had there been the delay of a normal period of four or five days, it would have caused confusion if a certain number of sacks came in at 10 per cent. duty and others at 20 per cent. It was thought desirable to bring the whole duty back at the same time.
The matter was brought to your attention by the Treasury in a note and the whole position was explained. I can assure hon. Members that certainly there was no intention of any disrespect to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 2291), dated 22nd December 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.

ESTIMATES

Mr. Granville West discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates and Mr. James MacColl added.—[Mr. Butcher.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. A. Edward Davies discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Granville West added.—[Mr. Butcher.]

CREMATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — APPLE JUICE INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

11.44 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: Because we are not always able to forecast how long our Parliamentary business will take, I have been sitting here almost solidly since 2.30 p.m. fearful to leave the Chamber because of the chance that I might be called in my absence and thus miss my Adjournment debate. Consequently, I have learned


much today about merchant shipping, about judicial salaries, about Income Tax and Customs and Excise law, about miners' welfare and Z reservists. I add to this diversity the subject of this Adjournment debate, which I hope may have the support of the whole House.
It is a truism that the present grave economic crisis means that in this country we have to plan our national resources to see that we get maximum value from them. Especial care must be taken to see that we extract every bit of use from material and products which hitherto have been waste. Local authorities have been doing this since the time of the war and have salvaged much waste paper and waste metal.
But there are other products at present wasting which can and should be used at little or no extra cost to the nation. I am concerned at this late stage of our proceedings to deal with one such proposal—the right use of the apples at present going to waste. Apples contain much natural sugar and have as by-products pectin and, from the residue, a certain amount of animal feedingstuffs. Without dilating unduly on the properties of the apple, it is significant that the calorific value of the apple is higher than that of beer and almost as high as that of milk.
Despite the big crop of English apples, in the 11 months ended 30th November last, imports of apples amounted to 184,000 tons—about 8.6 lb. per head of the population. Permitted imports between 1st December, 1951, and 30th June next will total 70,000 tons—approximately 3.1 lb. per head of the population. But it has been estimated that if last year's average crop is maintained in the coming year, and the public consumption remains at average, there will be a surplus on home production alone. There will be absolutely no need for the importation of any apples.
The National Farmers' Union have given figures showing the estimated surplus of apples last year from certain parts of the country. These do not cover the whole of the country, but the figures available suggest that in the counties of Kent, Devon, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire the total wastage last year was in the neighbourhood of 30,000 tons of apples.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: What about Worcestershire?

Wing Commander Bullus: I am inclined to believe that the wastage was higher than that, because I believe these figures deal with apples at the packing stations and I do not think they include the apples which were allowed to rot on the trees for the want of picking. Local estimates for the Wisbech area suggest that over 14,000 tons were wasted in the season, and for the year 1951—although it was not a glut year—I think it might reasonably be estimated—and it is almost certainly an under-estimate—that the total wastage of apples in this country was over 50,000 tons. I think that is an under-estimate; in a good year the figure would be considerably larger.
Generally, apples cannot be kept long in storage, and so the home industry has been considered a seasonal one, and that is one of the excuses given for the importation of apples. But it has been possible since 1936—and this is not generally known—to turn the apples into pure fruit juice, retaining all the natural sugar. I say this is not generally known. It it were, there would not be the need for so great an importation of apples, we should not have such flagrant waste and we should get the maximum value from our own crops—and the British apple is the finest in the world.
The pure unfermented apple juice industry—in which I have no vested interest—commenced in this country in 1936 as a direct outcome of the very considerable wastage of apples, as a result both of glut crops and of the development of the grading of apples for market. The consumption of the product grew very slowly, but at the beginning of the last war consumption had reached about 200,000 gallons a year, and the Minister of Food froze the production at that figure for the duration of the war.
At the end of the war two other firms began production, but the total sales have now fallen below 100,000 gallons, and there is a real possibility of the industry ceasing to function. Indeed, at a meeting of the Apple Juice Producers' Association in November last all member firms agreed regretfully that this season might be the last one for the Association. And yet the industry could take a large part, if not all, of the present surplus of English apples without further capital cost. The


capacity of the industry is well over four times its present production.
Let us look at what the utilisation of the waste apples by this industry might mean. Assuming that the waste last year was in the region of 50,000 tons, then it is estimated that this would have produced over 7 million gallons of pure, unfermented apple juice, which would have had a content of 3,500 tons of sugar from natural sources. If this quantity of 50,000 tons of apples had been processed into juice and the pomace dried at least 3,000 tons of product with a high pectin value would have been obtained. This would have been a most valuable addition to our supplies of dried apple pomace for the pectin industry. And we import pectin, be it remembered. Dried apple pomace contains approximately 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. by weight of pectin. Therefore, it is fair to assume that the utilisation of this 50,000 tons of waste apples would provide about 250 tons of dried pectin, an extremely valuable commodity at the present time, when pectin from dollar sources is difficult to come by. The Government figures show that we spent £52,700 on the import of pectin in 1950. So it will be seen what a valuable contribution in pectin can be made if our waste apples are used.
Again, the dried pomace, after extraction of pectin, can be redried, and then it still has some considerable value as a feedingstuff, although, admittedly, it is very low in protein content. Approximately 1,500 tons of this material would be available from the use of 50,000 tons of apples. Though I do not seek to compare the total nutritive value of apple juice with that of other products it is a good source of calories. Apple juice contains 300 calories per pint compared with 184 in a pint of beer and 375 in a pint of milk.
The sugars present in apple juice are nearly all composed of glucose and laevulose which are said to be very easily assimilated by the system. It has been shown by independent analysis to contain approximately 9 per cent. of invert sugar and.5 per cent. of cane sugar. This point should be of real interest to the Ministry of Health in connection with the hospitals service. It would appear that very large quantities of apple juice would be re-

quired if it were given only to those people who are in need of taking a considerable volume of liquid containing some nutritive materials such as sugars. The juice also contains minerals of which the chief is potassium, and on the Continent this product is very widely used, I understand, in hospital practice for diseases of the heart, kidney, and liver. On the Continent, it is said, mineral constituents are of prime importance.
Should the pure, unfermented fruit juice industry become defunct it would be extremely difficult in an emergency, in case of possible war, to resuscitate the various organisations. The Ministry of Food announced last November that very severe cuts in import licences for fruit juices were to be made this year. These cuts are of such an order as to embarrass the soft-drinks trade, and it would seem to be an entirely wrong time to allow the home fruit juice industry—an industry requiring no sugar—to lapse.
The Ministry of Agriculture is engaged in the final stage of considering a marketing scheme for apples, which may be placed before the fruit growing industry in the near future. The ultimate success of such a scheme with the grading of fruit as one of its main provisions must depend very largely on providing a suitable outlet for the cull apples at a price which enables the processer to show a profit. Removal of the apple juice industry from active participation in fruit utilisation would be a serious blow to the organisers of the scheme. The present shortage of sugar and the impending cuts in imported fruit juices throws into relief the fact that the processing of surplus apples would produce a volume of juice that would contain thousands of tons of natural sugar.
Now may I make a few suggestions about how the Ministry could help this industry? During the past 15 years the Apple Juice Producers Association has on various occasions approached the Ministries of Food, Health and Agriculture with its problems, and though received with sympathy there has not been any form of practical support. In Germany, France and Switzerland the Governments have given continuous assistance; and the United States Government is heavily subsidising its apple exports. The British Apple Juice Producers Association does not ask for any


form of subsidy or financial help. Obviously the Government could not sponsor any individual industry, but the Minister of Health could be of the greatest possible help by encouraging the further production of a valuable food from fruit that would otherwise be wasted.
I suggest that the Minister of Food could collaborate with the Minister of Health to ensure the maximum possible use of apple juice, primarily as a special issue in the hospitals and nursing homes in the Minister's control. I am given to understand that the juice is acceptable and liked in hospitals, though the present price may mitigate against its wide use at the moment; but a greater production from the industry means, of course, a cheaper product. It is thought that the beverage, with its completely unfermented character, and with its high content of natural fruit sugars, could be usefully served in Service canteens such as the N.A.A.F.I., and especially to flying men in the Air Force who are not permitted for some hours before flying to drink beverages of an alcoholic nature.
Not all schoolchildren like the milk given in schools, and I suggest that this fruit juice might prove an admirable alternative, if not a nutritive substitute, in our schools. Certain importations would not be necessary, or could be materially reduced. There would be no need for the importation of apples if we used all the apples in this country; and we should save on some of the imports of pectin and supply animal feedingstuffs. I do not know whether the Minister of Food still has his "Food Facts" publicity, but I think that such publicity might be given to the value of fruit juices produced from our own English apples.
These are only a few suggestions to help a British industry, to use a waste product to advantage, and to assist us in our efforts to balance the nation's budget. The suggestions I have made are by no means exhaustive. I suggest that what I have attempted to say tonight is of interest to other Ministries than the Ministry of Food, for the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Education and the Service Ministries are concerned; and, not least, in view of the possibility of using waste products and saving dollar imports, and possibly building up a useful export trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have a healthy interest in my proposals.
Already the pure fruit industry does a certain export trade, but there are immense possibilities, especially to Empire countries, such as India and Pakistan, and to South America for dollars. I should presume to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what I have said.
Finally, though representatives of the industry recently saw Ministry of Food officials, nothing tangible has yet resulted. I hope the Minister will, as a result of what I have said tonight, give sympathetic consideration to it to see if something can be done to extract full value from the apple crops of this country. The general advantages are enormous, and I think they are obvious.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) has raised the matter, because it is something which merits the attention of the Minister.
I have in my constituency an industry which has recently come there, and it has, been engaged in the very process of converting surplus apples into a useful juice for public consumption. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has rightly said, there are many difficulties in the way. The apple business is altogether a very complicated one. He has not covered all of it—he could not do so in the time at his disposal—and neither can I in the few remarks which I wish to make.
There is undoubtedly a big surplus of apples today. It is largely because there is now coming into bearing a large number of specialist orchards in Kent and parts of the Midlands, and they are now largely dominating the market for dessert and culinary apples. The old grass orchards, many of them cider but many of them culinary, are now having to meet not so much foreign competition but competition from the specialist orchards of this country, and the consequence is that there is a very great deal of rather second quality fruit which is not wanted in the home market for cooking and dessert.
It is quite useful for other purposes. Jam takes quite a lot of it, and cider some of it, although that requires rather a special type of apple, and lastly, but by no means least, there is this new industry which has grown up recently, thanks to


chemical science, for the production of unfermented apple juice. That is one of the ways in which this surplus could be tapped and taken off the wholesale market and used for consumption.
I know that there are difficulties. The costs of the process are rather high. The Government cannot, of course, deal with a problem of that kind, but if they could use their influence in different ways—the hon. and gallant Member has suggested some ways—where they have the means of doing so, such as in the case of hospitals, I certainly hope that they will do so, because it would be a contribution towards dealing with this surplus apple crop which is undoubtedly a drug on the market at the present time.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I intervene in the debate because one of the most important apple growing areas of the United Kingdom is that situated in western Worcestershire which is very largely within my constituency.
The apple growers in Worcestershire suffered last year a very dire distress as a result of the importation of no less than £1½ million worth of American apples, which were paid for in dollars, in spite of the fact that our output of apples in the United Kingdom last year, at approximately 670,000 tons, was the highest in our history.
The surplus of apples to which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), has referred is due in the most part to the importation of American apples on top of an unduly large crop in this country.

Mr Philips Price: It is far less than it used to be.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member forgets that, in response to the pleas of the Minister of Agriculture in the last few years, our home production has been very much higher than it has ever been before.
I wish to reinforce the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) for two important reasons. First, there is, in my view, likely to be a surplus of apples for several years ahead as a result of the increased acreage which is now being grown, and supplemental in-

dustries such as the cyder industry are urgently wanted; but the second point which is economic in character, and equally important, is that the Ministry of Food should stop spending the nation's valuable dollars buying foodstuffs and fruit which we can very well grow here ourselves.

12.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I shall not follow the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), for that is a theme in itself, and I think the House would wish me to reply to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus). I would say this, though. The imports of apples to this country are relatively small and have been well graded high quality apples, and they have come at a time when the surplus has consisted for the most part of cooking apples.
I agree with many of the things that my hon. and gallant Friend has said tonight. I share his desire that we should do everything to avoid food wastage, though it will be appreciated that production of apple juice needs undamaged healthy small apples, and this does not afford a convenient way of using other types of apples. Apple juice production would afford a useful outlet for these cull apples. I accept that if all the cull apples were used there would be a saving in our imports. It would probably mean a saving of £150,000.
I accept that unfermented apple juice is a healthy and attractive drink. I am referring to my own appetite for it. I cannot speak for those who prefer other types of drink without the preliminary word "unfermented." The essence of this matter is whether there should be Departmental action in order to encourage the production and sale of this unfermented apple juice. The claim, as I understand it, is that it is a nutritious health-giving drink and that therefore we should encourage it officially.
Let me say at once that the apple is a very valuable fruit, but do not let us begin to compare it in nutritional quality with milk. Do not let us exaggerate the position. The apple is a source of valuable vitamin C. It contains anything from one to five milligrams per ounce, whereas the blackcurrant contains 57


milligrams per ounce. It is a modest source of vitamin C. Taking the varieties of apple, almost one-half of them contain no vitamin C at all. The Bramley Seedling is the only one which contains it in any quantity, except, I think, for the Woolbrook Russet apple, of which I believe there are only two trees in this country.
Reference has been made to other constituents such as potassium, sodium, and so forth, but these are present in more plentiful quantity in other fruit juices. Reference has also been made to apple juice as a source of sugar. I accept that. As to its caloric strength, I would only say that its nutritional value as a food depends in relatively small part on this.
But the real value of apples and the real value of apple juice is not that it gives some nutritional satisfaction but that it meets with the wishes of those who like it. What the hon. and gallant Member is really saying is that we should select this drink, that we should place on it a high value and as a Department persuade more people to drink more of it. I suggest that is not something we can properly do. It costs 1s. 6d. a pint as compared with other drinks: I will not proceed with that comparison. I suggest that one of the reasons why sales have gone down is because of the price and because it is so much more expensive than the fruit squashes which contain a much smaller proportion of natural juices.
The Department quite clearly does sponsor some fluids; it sponsors milk, the strongest drink bar none—it is no good comparing the nutritional virtues of apple juice with milk—it sponsors orange juice. When we have a liquid, which is useful to some extent as a food more

because it delights the palate than fills the tissues, it is too much to ask that the Department should press the virtues of that liquid against other liquids and dip into this field of human preference, which is just as important in the field of drinks as in the field of foods.
The Ministry of Health has made it known that hospitals are free and indeed are encouraged to take advantage of these natural juices, but it is for the individual hospital, the individual doctor and, most important of all, the individual patient, to decide the amount of this liquid that he desires to drink. I say nothing about the prospects of its sale in N.A.A.F.I. canteens. That must be a question of persuasion by the proprietors of these products. If, as I am sure they do, they believe they have something of great public value to put before the people of this country, I suggest, without being critical of the apple, without being critical of unfermented apple juice—despite the unattractive character of the description—that this is the task of the individual organisation or firm which seeks help and which will profit by the appetite it creates. It is for the individual organisation and not a task to be laid on a Government Department, for once we begin to advocate a particular food or drink on the ground of some modest dietetic value, where would that policy of advocacy end? How much time would be left to the Department to devote to other uses and even more important sources of human nutriment?

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.